Koshy, J.

By this Habeas Corpus petition, the petitioner, wife of the detenu, approached this court against the detention of her husband. On the basis of preventive detention order dated 20.11.2003, issued under the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (for short “COFEPOSA”). It is true that whether a person has to be detained without trial as a preventive measure to prevent him from indulging in commission of economic offence as mentioned in the Act depends on the subjective satisfaction of the authorities concerned. The above subjective satisfaction is outside the purview of judicial review. Preventive detention is different from punitive detention after offences are proved according to the procedure prescribed by law. Article 21 of the Constitution provides that no person shall be deprived for his life or personal liberty except according to the procedure established by law. Article 22 which authorities preventive detention, lays down statutory limitations and procedural safeguards. The preventive detention is not intended as punishment for commission of economic offence. We are not considering correctness of application of mind regarding the satisfaction of the authority in issuing the order or merits of the case, but whether constitutional safeguards prescribed by law are complied with or not. As held by the Apex Court in Narendra Purshotam Umrao v. B.B. Gujral and others (AIR 1979 SC 420) when the liberty of the citizen is involved and he is put in prison without trial as a preventive measure, it is the bounden duty of the court to satisfy itself that all the safeguards provided by law have been scrupulously observed. This is so even if one is detained for preventing economic offences under COFEPOSA as held by the Apex Court in Icchu Devi v. Union of India (AIR 1980 SC 1983) and in Rattan Singh v. State of Punjab (1981 SCC (Ori) 853).

2. The contentions of the petitioner are four in number. (1) There is delay in issuing the preventive detention order, accepting the dates mentioned in the order. (2) There is delay in disposal of the representations filed against the order. (3) The representations were not properly disposed of by the appropriate authority and those orders were not sent on him. But only the rejection order was communicated by another authority without stating any reason. (4) There is delay in execution of the detention order.

3. To understand the nature of the contentions, before dealing with the contentions, we may come to the allegations against the detenu as contained in paragraph 6 of the order that:

“6. It was seen that amounts totaling Rs.2,07,50,000/- were credited into the A/c. No.423 with Federal Bank, Thrissur and Current A/c. No.274 with Catholic Syrian Bank, Thrissur, of Shri B. Nandakumar of Guruvayoor (i.e., you) by means of Telegraphic Transfers from Shri C. Surendra Kumar’s bank accounts at Mumbai. Therefore, your residential premises at Guruvayoor and Ernakulam were searched on 29.05.2000, but nothing incriminating was found in either of the premises. You were not present during the said searches. Subsequently, your statements were recorded on 14.08.2000, 23.08.2000, 07.1.2000 and 16.03.2001, in which you admitted, inter alia, having been instrumental in introducing Shri C. Surendra Kumar to various banks in Kerala either by yourself or through your contacts and also having accompanied him many times to banks in Ernakulam and Thrissur. You further stated, inter alia, that the said two accounts in your name were opened and operated at his instance and that you had received a remuneration from him by means of a cheque for Rs.52,000/-.”

These are the only acts said to have been done by the detenu in this case. That shows that there is no transaction concerning the case done by the detenu after 16.3.2001. There is no case for the respondents also that after March 2001, he has opened or operated the accounts connected with the case. He was also