JUDGMENT - H.H. KANTHARIA, J.:---The petitioner here is the mother of one Mohamed Akbar Ansari (hereinafter referred to as 'the detenu'). The petitioner-mother challenges the order dated October 4, 1990 passed by the Secretary (Preventive Detention) to the Government of Maharashtra, Home Department and detaining authority (hereinafter referred to as 'the first respondent') by which the detenue was detained under sub-section (1) of section 3 of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 with a view to preventing him from smuggling goods.

2. The relevant facts on which the detention order was based are that on April 22, 1990 the customs officers of Air Intelligence Unit intercepted the detenu inside the arrival hall of Sahar Airport when he had earlier arrived from Dubai by Air India flight No. Al 710 and had been cleared through walk-through channel and was moving towards the exist gate. The detenu had one grey black colour 'Ocean' zipper suit case, one maroon colour 'crown' brief case and one carton as his baggage.

3. The customs officers called two panchas in whose presence they checked the carton carried by the detenu. One gas table was found inside the carton and two burners were found to contain arch shaped pieces of moulinex mixer. The customs officers unscrewed the motor of the mixer and found inside two arch shaped pieces of gold. The weight of all the six pieces was found to be 1120 gms. The customs officers seized the six pieces of gold valued at Rs. 2,46,400/- and Rs. 3,83,040/- under a panchanama under the provisions of the Customs Act.

4. Various contentions are raised in the petition in order to challenge the detention order and likewise quite a few contentions are raised at the hearing by Miss Prabha Mane, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner, at the time of hearing of this writ petition. However, it is not necessary to deal with all those contentions for the purpose of disposing of this writ petition as, in our opinion, the petition should succeed on one single point that the sponsoring authority did not place vital and important documents before the detaining authority, in that they did not place order of the learned Magistrate passed on the remand application on 24-4-1990 by which the detenu was released on bail after imposing certain conditions of him viz. the detenu was to attend customs department as and when required and that his passport was retained. Miss Mane, emphatically submitted that non-placement of this vital and important document fully before the detaining authority impaired the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority in passing the impugned detention order.

5. This aspect of the matter was dealt with by the first respondent in his affidavit in reply by stating that it was correct to say that the remand application dated 24th April, 1990 was placed before him and a copy of the same was given to the detenue but the full text of the order passed by the learned Magistrate on the said remand application was not placed before him nor a copy thereof was given to the detenu. However according to him, in the margin of the said remand application the gist of the order passed by the Court was mentioned and the same was supplied to the detenu. It is the contention of the first respondent, in his affidavit, that the vital part of the Court's order was made known to him and that the full text of the order passed by the learned Magistrate was not a vital and material document. He also contended that the retention of passport by customs may not prevent the detenu from indulging in similar prejudicial activities in future and, therefore, non-placement of the learned Magistrate's order which indicated that the passport of the detenu was retained by customs and that the detenu was required to attend the customs department as and when required could not vitiate the order of detention. Mr. Page, learned Public Prosecutor, argued with equal vehemen