( 1 ) THE detention order was served on the petitioner on 12. 5. 94 passed by Shri Mahendera Prasad, Joint Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Finance, dated 2. 5. 1994. This was served on the petitioner who was in judicial custody in pursuant to Kalandara under Sections 107/151 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the Code) and also under judicial custody under criminal complaint titled enforcement Vs. J. P. Gupta under Sec. 56 of Foreign Exchange Regulations Act (for short `fera ).

( 2 ) THE detenu was served with the grounds of detention on 5. 5. 94 along with huge bunches of documents running into 1760 pages. It is the case of the petitioner that on the basis of the arrest of two persons and recovery of amount of Rs. 50 lacs, the office and residential premises of the detenu were searched by the Enforcement Officials but nothing incriminating was found therefrom. A complaint was filed under Sec. 56 of FERA on 29. 10. 93 when the petitioner did not appear before the FERA Authorities for the prosecution of the petitioner on which process was issued by the ACMM against the petitioner. According to the petitioner he was never properly served and apprehending his false implication in the case, he preferred two petitions before the High Court of Calcutta for grant of relief restraining the respondents from detaining the petitioner under the provisions of FERA. After receiving the process from the court of ACMM in respect of the complaint under Sec. 56 of the FERA the petitioner filed an application under Sec. 242 (2) Criminal Procedure Code for his discharge. ACMM also passed the order for the presence of the petitioner. Petitioner proceeded from Calcutta to Delhi but according to the averments made by him in the petition on 29. 3. 94 he was again apprehended under Sec. 107/151 of the Code and was remanded to judicial custody from the court of Executive Magistrate, Seelampur. Therafter the wife of the petitioner informed, by way of filing an application before the ACMM, that the petitioner is confined to judicial custody with the request that if any statement has to be recorded by the respondents they can do so in jail or on petitioner s production before the court of learned ACMM. It transpired that the learned ACMM directed the respondents-officials to record the statement of the detenu in jail itself where his statement was recorded.

( 3 ) ON the application of the petitioner under Sec. 245 (2) of the Code for the discharge of the detenu, proceedings under Sec. 56 of FERA were quashed. However, the learned ACMM passed the order that the complaint will be treated under Sec. 228 Indian Penal Code against which a revision has been filed by the petitioner.

( 4 ) MR. KHAN learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the detention order of one page was served on the petitioner when he was in judicial custody in Kalandara under Sec. 107/151 of the Code as well as under judicial custody in a criminal complaint under Sec. 56 of the FERA.

( 5 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner has argued that certain documents which were relevant were not placed before the detaining authority at the time of obtaining the detention order dated 2. 5. 94 and in the absence of illegible documents and relevant documents it was difficult for the detenu to make an effective representation before the detaining authority. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also argued that as the detenu was in judicial custody at the time when detention order was passed it amounts to double detention. Another ground taken by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the retraction has not been considered by the detaining authority as well as the complaint lodged by the wife and the material was not placed before the detaining authority otherwise detaining authority would not have passed the detention order. The detenu mentioned for supply of these documents in Clause 13 of the application dated 30. 5. 9