( 1 ) RULE D. B.

( 2 ) BY this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, for a writ of Habeas Corpus, the petitioner challenges the detention of Dinesh Kumar Jain on 11/8/1998, pursuant to the order passed on 20/5/1998 by the Lt. Governor of National Capital Territory of Delhi in exercise of powers conferred under section 3 (1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (for short the COFEPOSA Act ).

( 3 ) THE order of detention is based on the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority that it was necessary to detain the said detenu with a view to preventing him from smuggling goods and also preventing him from engaging in transporting, concealing and keeping smuggled goods, in future. According to the grounds of detention, on 20/1/1997, the detenu, identifying himself as Rajendra Kumar, holding Indian Passport in that name, got himself cleared through immigration and customs in the departure hall of the Indira Gandhi International Airport, New Delhi for going to Sharjah when, on suspicion, he was intercepted by the Air Customs Officer (Preventive) and was asked as to whether he was carrying any foreign currency, narcotic drugs etc to which he replied in the negative. After serving a notice under section 102 of the Customs Act, 1962, in the presence of two independent witnesses, his personal search was conducted, which resulted in the recovery of substantial amount of foreign currency from his belt and locket. Further search of his handbag also resulted in recovery of foreign currency meticulously concealed in its handles. The total foreign and Indian currency so recovered was equivalent to Rs. 4,20,230. 00 , which was seized. In his voluntary statement tendered under section 108 of the Customs Act the detenu, while admitting the recovery of the said currency, stated that it was given to him by a person in Muzaffar Nagar U. P. for carrying it to Sharjah for which he was to get Rs. 5,000. 00 besides to and fro ticket to Sharjah. The detenu was arrested on 21/1/1997 and was produced before the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, New Delhi, who, after remanding him to judicial custody till 3/2/1997, admitted him to bail on 4/2/1997. The detenu retracted his statement on 6/4/1997. Further investigations revealed that the detenu had visited abroad a number of times under the fake name as well as his real name.

( 4 ) IT was on these facts that the detaining authority came to the aforenoted conclusion.

( 5 ) IN opposition to the writ petition, reply affidavit has been filed on behalf of the detaining authority.

( 6 ) WE have heard Mr. Ashutosh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. S. K. Aggarwal, Standing Counsel (Criminal) for the detaining authority.

( 7 ) ALTHOUGH in the writ petition the validity of the order of detention has been challenged on several grounds but before us Mr. Ashutosh has urged only three grounds, namely : i) there is an inordinate, unexplained long delay of more than 2-1/2 months in the execution of the detention order and, therefore, the live proximate link between the grounds of detention and the purpose of detention stands snapped, ii) the detaining authority has failed to take into consideration a vital fact that before the order of detention was served on the detenu, he was already in judicial custody and there was no fresh satisfaction recorded by the detaining authority to the effect that there were compelling reasons justifying such detention despite the fact that the detenu was already in custody and in the alternative if such a satisfaction was recorded, it should have been communicated to the detenu along with grounds of detention because it by itself constituted a fresh ground and iii) there was delay in passing the detention order.

( 8 ) IT is well settled that if there is an unreasonable delay between the date of the order of detention and the date of arrest of the detenu, such delay, unless satisfactor