In preventive detention proceedings under COFEPOSA, delay in passing a detention order may be permissible if justified by the circumstances, reliance on statements of accomplices is permissible, and satisfaction of involvement in smuggling activities can be based on evidence of ownership of the smuggling vessel and provision of finances for the operation.

( 1 ) OM Prokash Modi, the petitioner in this petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus under Art. 226 of the Constitution, is detained by an order dt. Sept. 19,1984 passed by a Joint Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Finance (Department of Revenue ). The order was passed in exercise of the powers conferred on him by sub-sec. (1) of S. 3 of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 ('cofeposa' for short) with a view to preventing the petitioner from smuggling goods, abetting the smuggling of goods and engaging in transporting smuggled goods. The sum and substance of the grounds of detention communicated to the petitioner, which run through 39 pages, are as under : on the basis of a secret information the Customs Officers of the Diamond Harbour Preventive Unit intercepted one jeep and one white Ambassador car at Kulpimore, 65 Kms. south of Calcutta, on Mar. 29, 1984. The vehicles were coming from Kakdwip, a place "30 Kms south of Kulpimore, towards Calcutta. There was another chocolate coloured Ambassador car at some distance behind those two vehicles which fled away towards Kakdwip on seeing the Customs Officers and could not be intercepted. The intercepted jeep and the Ambassador car were searched and 74831 pieces of wrist watches valued at Rs. 40,56,100/- were recovered therefrom. There were three occupants, namely, Mrinal Saha, Kanwarlal Jain and Amar Singh, in the jeep and the two occupants of the Ambassador car were Govindlal Modi and Md. Kalachand. Interrogation of those persons revealed that a trawler named "king Fisher" had been used to bring those watches from a foreign ship and that the watches were off loaded at Harwood point, Kakdwip. The trawler was located while it was inside a canal in Kalinagar area at the extreme end of No. 8 ghat of Kakdwip and was searched. The search resulted in recovery of two pairs of Binoculars and one Compass all of foreign origin, valued at Rs. 2200/ -. The five occupants of the two vehicles and the ten crew members on board the said trawler were arrested and the wrist watches, binoculars and the compass were seized under the Customs Act, 1962 on the reasonable belief that the said goods were smuggled and were liable to be confiscated under the provisions of the Customs Act, 1962 as they failed to produce any evidence, documentary or otherwise to show legal possession and bona fide acquisition of those goods. The Jeep, the Ambassador car and the carrier-trawler were also seized for carrying smuggled goods.

( 2 ) ON April 19, 1984, on receipt of further information, the said Diamond Harbour Customs Preventive Unit searched the premises of one Smt. Himangini Jana of village Ganeshpur within the police station of Kakdwip and recovered and seized 22720 pieces of electronic wrist watches of foreign origin valued at Rs. 9,08,800/-; and one brief case containing incriminating documents was also seized.

( 3 ) IN connection with those two seizures various persons were interrogated including the occupiers of the jeep, the Ambassador car and the trawler and their statements were also recorded under S. 108 of the Customs Act and pursuant thereto further searches were conducted. From the materials collected from such interrogations, statements recorded under S. 108 of the Customs Act, and the searches conducted the detaining authority concluded that the petitioner was the owner of the trawler in question and he had been smuggling goods, abetting the smuggling of goods and engaging in transporting smuggled goods. The details of the statements made by the persons interrogated and of the seizures have been incorporated in the grounds of detention.

( 4 ) IN assailing the order of detention Mr. Dipankar Gupta, the learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner, first contended that though the seizure was made on Mar. 29, 1984 the order of detention was not made till Sept. 19, 1984 which clearly indicated that there was n