JUDGMENT

SUJATA V.MANOHAR, J.

(1) SPECIAL leave granted.

(2) HEARD the learned counsel for the parties.

(3) MR Lalit, the learned counsel for the detenu placed before us one single point, namely, that the factum of retraction of the confessional statement had not been brought to the notice of the detaining authority which went to vitiate the entire detention order. It appears from the facts that after the detenu was apprehended his statements were recorded on 6-4-1994 and 7-4-1994 under the provisions of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973. It further transpires that on the very next day, i.e., 8-4-1994 the detenu retracted the confessional statements recorded on 6-4-1994/7-4-1994 before the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Patiala House, New Delhi. In the margin of that retraction the learned Magistrate has made a note to the effect "keep it on record". The prosecution was by the Department which had initiated the detention proceedings and, therefore, it was aware of the retraction of the confessional statement. Even before the Advisory Board this contention was raised in para 7 of the representation made to the Board by