IMPORTANT POINT
When there is long time lag between the offending act and the order of detention and between date of order of detention and arrest, they throw doubt on the genuineneus of the satisfaction arrived at by the detaining authority.

JUDGMENT

S. Ratnavel Pandian, J.- This appeal under Article 136 of the Constitution of India is preferred by the appellant, Abdul Rahman questioning the validity and correctness of the order of detention passed by the first Respondent on 7-10-1987 in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 3(1) (iii) and 3 (1) (iv) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Actictivities Act, 1974 (Central Act 52 of 1974) (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') whereby detaining the appellant's brother Sri T. A. Sirajudeen @ Siraj (the detenu herein) with a view to preventing the detenu from engaging in transporting or concealing or keeping smuggled gold or dealing in smuggled gold otherwise than by engaging in transporting or concealing or keeping smuggled gold.

2. Though the impugned order was passed on 7-10-1987, the detenu was arrested on 18-1-88 and detained in the Central prison, Trivandrum from 19-1-1988 onwards. The detenu was furnished with copies of the grounds of detention and other connected material documents on 21-1-1988. The detenu made a representation to the third Respondent praying for revocation of the detention order on 25-1-88 which was rejected on 11-4-1988. Meanwhile on 11-2-1988 a declaration by the third Respondent under Section 9(1) of the Act was made, whereby the detenu was ordered to be detained for a continued detention for a further period of 6 months over one year. The first Respondent made a reference under Section 8 of the ct on 5.5.1988 to the advisory Board which has reported that there is in its opinion sufficient cause for the detention of the detenu. The material facts which necessitated the passing of the detention order can be briefly stated thus:

On 30-11-1986, Superintendent of Central Excise, Manjeri Range and party searched the permanent residence of the detenu in his presence which did not result in the seizure of any contraband goods or the recovery of any incriminating documents. But on questioning by the officer, the detenu confessed that he had buried eleven gold biscuits in the back-yard of his house. He dug up the spot and produced the eleven gold biscuits which were kept concealed under the ground. Each of the gold biscuits was found wrapped in black carbon paper bearing foreign markings and weighing 10 tolas each with the purity of 24 carats. The total weigh of the eleven gold biscuits was 1282.600 gms., the market value of which as on that date was Rs. 3, 14,237/-. The .contraband goods were seized under a Mahazar. On 30-11-86 a statement was recorded from the detenu by the Superintendent of the Central Excise under Section 108 of the Customs Act in which the detenu had given a detailed note of his involvement in the smuggling activities. On 9-12-86 also the Superintendent of Central Excise searched the residence of the' detenu in the reasonable belief that there was concealment of more smuggled gold in the said house. During this search, the detenu pointed out to the Superintendent one packet which had been placed in the thatched roofing of his house. The Superintendent took out the packet and it was found containing four gold ingots bearing foreign markings weighing 466.400 gms. with 24 carat purity, all to the value of Rs. 1,14,268/-. The detaining authority taking into consideration of the seizure effected on two occasions and the statement of the detenu admitting his involvement in the prejudicial activities mentioned in the grounds of detention reached its subjective satisfaction of the necessity of passing the impugned order and passed the same on 7-10-1987. The appellant filed a Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for quashing the impugned order of detention, but was not successful. Hence this appeal.

2. Of the several grounds urged in the Special Leave Petition, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant stressed only the following two contentions seeking to set aside the order of detention.

(1) As there is no prox