Smt. Ranjana Desai, J.

. The petitioner is the wife of one Umesh Shetty ("detenu" for convenience), who has been detained by the 2nd respondent, Principal Secretary (Appeals and Security), Government of Maharashtra, under the provisions of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 ("COFEPOSA Act" for short), with a view to preventing him in future from smuggling goods. In this petition, the petitioner has challenged the said order of detention.

2. The order of detention was served on the detenu when he was in judicial custody. The grounds of detention indicate that the material placed before the detaining authority disclosed that two consignments imported by the detenu were seized by the DRI Officers on 21/2/06. The relevant bills of entry showed the goods contained in the consignments as plastic parts of toys. However, they contained 4 lakh pieces of Analog Watch Movements valued at Rs.68 lakhs. It was apparent, therefore, that the goods were misdeclared.

3. On the basis of the material placed before her the detaining authority was satisfied that the detenu had engaged in prejudicial activities and she was satisfied that unless detained he was likely to continue to engage in similar prejudicial activities in future also after his release from custody. In the circumstances she issued the impugned detention order with a view to preventing the detenu in future from smuggling goods.

4. We have heard Mr. Maqsood Khan, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Mhaispurkar, the learned APP for the State. With the assistance of the learned counsel, we have gone through the relevant material and the affidavits on record.

5. Mr. Khan’s first submission is that the order of detention should be set aside because in the grounds of detention the detaining authority has stated that she was aware that the detenu was in judicial custody and considering the nature and gravity of the offence, she was satisfied that unless detained the detenu was likely to continue to engage in similar prejudicial activities in future also after his release from custody, but the detaining authority has not recorded as to how she reached the conclusion that the detenu was likely to be released from the custody in near future. He submitted that no material was placed before her to come to such a conclusion. He submitted that remand proceedings before the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate’s court were vital documents which would have enabled the detaining authority to record her satisfaction as to whether or not the detenu would be released on bail. However, the remand proceedings were not placed before her. Mr. Khan submitted that, therefore, the conclusion reached by the detaining authority that the detenu was likely to be released on bail is based on no material. This indicates non application of mind of the detaining authority. He submitted that remand proceedings were vital documents which ought to have been placed before the detaining authority and copies thereof ought to have been supplied to the detenu. Mr. Khan submitted that this not having been done there is a violation of detenu’s right under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India. In this connection Mr. Khan relied on T.V. Sravanan alias S.A.R. Prasana Venkatachaariar Chaturvedi v. State through Secretary & Anr., (2006) 2 SCC 664.

6. Mr. Khan submitted that the detaining authority’s non application of mind is evident from the fact that in her affidavit she has stated that the offence in respect of which the detenu was arrested was punishable with maximum imprisonment of three years, when in fact it is punishable with minimum imprisonment of three years. He submitted that offence under Section 135 of the Customs Act is punishable with minimum imprisonment of three years and maximum imprisonment of seven years. He submitted that the detai