The detaining authority must apply its mind and scrutinize the materials before passing a detention order. The detenu has the right to make a representation for legal assistance before the Advisory Board, which must be considered by the Board.

M. CHOCKALINGAM, J.

The petitioner herein challenges the impugned order of detention passed by the first respondent in G.O. No. S.R.1/675-6/2008 dated 6.11.2008 whereby one Ajmal Khan, S/o Mohamed Hussain was ordered to be detained under the provisions of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974.

2. Affidavit filed in support of the petition along with the grounds of attack and the entire materials placed are scrutinized. Heard the learned counsel on either side.

3. The said order of the detention came to be made under the following circumstances:

The petitioner's husband one Ajmal Khan, on specific information that he was indulged in attempting to smuggle electronic goods, was intercepted on his arrival at Anna International Airport, Chennai on 9.10.2008. He produced Indian Passport No. F-9963511 and also flight ticket bearing No. SQ/ETKT 618 2537021220 boarding card for seat number 45H, counterfoil for baggage tags and customs declaration form. When he was questioned about the baggage tags, he informed that they were lost, but he was found carrying a hand baggage, and the same was also checked. Thereafter, entertaining suspicion, he was asked to identify the checked in baggage which he identified that they were three in number and accordingly they were searched in the presence of two witnesses and found to contain electronic goods, watches and computer parts as detailed in the mahazar and they were valued at Rs. 10,51,300/-. The said goods were seized under the mahazar. The statement given by him was recorded. It was found that the smuggling activities were punishable under the provisions of Customs Act and also the goods were to be confiscated. After arrest, he was produced before the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Economic Wing-I for the purpose of judicial remand and accordingly, he was remanded. Originally, he made an application for bail on 10.10.2008 before the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Economic Offences-I, Egmore,Chennai and the same was dismissed on 22.10.2008. Another application for bail was filed on 24.10.2008 before the Principal Sessions Division, Chennai and the same was pending. Recommendations were made by the Sponsoring Authority that it was a fit case where the provisions of COFEPOSA Act were to be invoked for making the order of detention. On scrutiny of the materials, the State was also satisfied that the detenu was indulged in smuggling activities and in order to prevent him from such activities in future, an order of detention became necessary and accordingly made the order on 6.11.2008, which is challenged in this Habeas Corpus Petition.

4. Advancing arguments on behalf of the petitioner, learned counsel made the following submissions:

According to the counsel, there were lot of discrepancies found in the order of detention which were on the basis of the materials placed by the Sponsoring authority and the relied on documents. Learned counsel took the Court to the declaration card alleged to have been made by the detenu where the value found as Rs. 1 lakh, but when the counter affidavit filed before the Court for making the order of judicial remand, the value was found as Rs. 50,000/-. Learned counsel also further took the Court to the extract where the value of the property was shown as Rs. 50,000/- at one place and Rs. 1 lakh at other places. The detenu was actually arrested on 10.10.2008, but whereas in the counter it was shown as 14.8.2008. According to the detenu, he used to visit Singapore, Colombo and Hong Kong, but in the translated version of the remand application furnished to the detenu, it was stated that he visited 'UAE'. The counsel further added that the detenu traveled through boarding card for seat number 45H, but in the translated version, it is shown as 45B. The authority while making an order should have applied his mind and asked for clarification before passing the order under challenge, but the authority has f