I. P. SINGH. J. ( 1 ) THROUGH this petition, petitioner Rajendra Prasad alias Ram Kishall (hereinafter referred to as the detenu) challenges the validity of the detention order dated 6. 11. 81 passed by the State Government under section 3 of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ). ( 2 ) THE facts of the case al appearing from the petition, counter-affidavit and the rejoinder affidavit are as follows: On 16. 4. 81, the officials of the Customs Department detained the detenu at Char-Bagh Railway Station, Lucknow when he arrived there from Gorakhpur by Vaishali Express and his personal search yielded to 400 foreign wrist watches worth approximately Rs. 40,000/ -. The said recovery was recorded in the recovery memo prepared on the spot. At the same time the statement of the detenu was recorded in which he gave out his wrong name as Ram Kishan though the remaining address was disclosed correctly. It was during the visit to his house at the given address that on 20. 4. 81 his father gave out his correct Dame as Rajendra Prasad. However, in his said statement dated 16. 4. 81 he had admitted that he visited Bhairwa in Nepal where he met one Joshiji who represented himself to be running a shop in the name of Vishal Fancy Store and desired him to take the consignment of wrist watches to Lucknow and Kanpur and deliver the same there for a reward of Rs. 500/- per trip. He had already delivered two consignments of 300 wrist watches at Kanpur and Lucknow within the past two months. He also admitted that the consignment of watches seized was also being transported for the same end. Accordingly, in pursuance of proceedings under sections 112/111, Customs Act the recovered wrist watches were confiscated. No proceedings under section 135 of the Customs Act had so far been taken, against the detenu though he was arrested under section 104 of the Customs Act. In May, 1981 the detenu was released on bail by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lucknow vide his order passed under section 104 (3) of the Customs Act. However, in pursuance of the statement given by the detenu to the Customs authorities on 16. 4. In May, 1981 the detenu was released on bail by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lucknow vide his order passed under section 104 (3) of the Customs Act. However, in pursuance of the statement given by the detenu to the Customs authorities on 16. 4. 81 they had to investigate the matter in an effort to find out the source of these watches and apprehend the persons on whose behalf the detenu was operating. It was only on 16. 9. 81 that the Customs Department made a proposal to the Government to consider the question of passing an order of detention against the detenu. The State Government after considering the entire material and being satisfied that with a view to prevent the detenu from (i) smuggling goods, or (ii) engaging in concealing or keeping smuggled goods it was necessary to detain him, passed the impugned order of detention. It is obvious that the sole incident of 16 4. 81, as mentioned above, was the only ground leading to the above satisfaction and passing of the impugned order of detention. ( 3 ) AS seen above the detention order was passed on 6. 11. 81 when the detenu had already been released on bail by the C. J. M. , Lucknow in May, 1981. This detention order, therefore, had to be executed by arresting the detenu. ( 4 ) PARA 5 of the counter-affidavit of Shri G. N. Khulbe, Section Officer. Confidential Section V, U. P. Secretariat, Lucknow states that tile said detention order of the Government was sent to the District Magistrate, Gorakhpur for execution on 6. 11. 81 with a view to effect the arrest of the detenu Further facts deposed in the counter affidavit indicate that the detenu was not available and could not he arrested despite repeated raids on his house. Accordingly proceedings u/s 7-1 (1) and 7-1 (h) of the Act were taken against the detenu. The necessary notification as required under section 7-1 (b) of the Act was published in the official Gazette on 20. 11. 83 directing the detenu to surrender himself. The C. J. M. , Gorakhpur was also requested to take action under sections 82/83, Cr. P. C. against the detenu, It was further stated that in pursuance of these steps the detenu ultimately surrendered on 23. 5. 11. 83 directing the detenu to surrender himself. The C. J. M. , Gorakhpur was also requested to take action under sections 82/83, Cr. P. C. against the detenu, It was further stated that in pursuance of these steps the detenu ultimately surrendered on 23. 5. 83 where after the order of detention together with the grounds of detention and other materials relating thereto were served on the detenu in Jail on 26. 5. 83. Annexure 1 to the petition is the photostat copy of the certificate issued by the Superintendent, Sadar Lockup; Gorakhpur to the effect that the detenu was detained in the lockup w. e. f. 23. 5. 83 under the COFEPOSA Act. ( 5 ) THE detenu submitted his representation on 16,683 and the same was receive a on the State Government on 17. 6. 83. The said representation was sent to the Customs department for their comments on that very day. These comments were received on 21. 6. 83 and the representation was considered on 22. 6. 83 by the concerned department and submitted the same for orders to the higher authorities. It was examined by the Joint Secretary, Home and the Home Secretary on 23. 6. 83 and it was ultimately rejected by the Honble Chief Minister the same day. The fact of the rejection of the representation was communicated to the detenu and the representation together with the rejection order were placed before the Advisory Board on 24,6,83. The petitioner was heard by the Advisory Board on 11. 7,83. The opinion of the Advisory Board was received by the State Government on 13. 7. 83 and after considering the entire material the detention order was confirmed on 15. 7. 83. This fact was communicated to the detenu on 18. 7. 83. ( 6 ) THE detention order is challenged or a number of grounds which we will deal seriatim (1) It is contended that the sole ground of detention is the incident of 16. 4. 81 and that for the same incident the detenu is being prosecuted under sections 104/135 of the Customs Act, 1962. It was submitted that in view of the said prosecution the State Government cannot detain the detenu on the same facts. 4. 81 and that for the same incident the detenu is being prosecuted under sections 104/135 of the Customs Act, 1962. It was submitted that in view of the said prosecution the State Government cannot detain the detenu on the same facts. It has been held in Hem Lata Kantilal Shah v. State of Maharashtra and another1 at page 15 that, The normal law is that when an isolated offence or isolated offences is or are committed the offender is to be prosecuted. But, if there be a law of preventive detention empowering the authority to detain a particular offender in order to disable him to repeat his offence, it can do so, but it will be obligatory on the part of the detaining authority to formally comply with the provisions of sub-article (5) of Article 22 of the Constitution of India. ( 7 ) IT is to be noted that in para 3 of the counter affidavit of Shri G. N. Khulbe, it is stated that proceedings under section 135 of the Customs Act have not so far been taken against the detenu. In view of the above situation the authority concerned can take action under the law of preventive detention. Thus this point bas no force. ( 8 ) (2) The incident is said to be of 16. 4. 81 whereas the detention order is dated 6. 11. 81. There appears a time gap of almost 6 months. For this reason it is contended that the ground of detention based on the said incident of 16. 4. 81 became remote. But, as already narrated that in connection with the said incident the statement of the detenu had been recorded on the same day and the investigations had to follow, it was after that investigation that the Customs authorities sent proposal for the detention of the detenu on 16. 9. 81 to the State Government and it was after considering the entire material that the subjective satisfaction was arrived at and the detention order was passed on 6. 11. 81. In these circumstances the delay involved stands reasonably explained and the impugned order cannot be struck down on the basis of the ground being a remote one. ( 9 ) (3) It was contended that the so-called statement (confession) of the detenu which is said to have been recorded on 164. 11. 81. In these circumstances the delay involved stands reasonably explained and the impugned order cannot be struck down on the basis of the ground being a remote one. ( 9 ) (3) It was contended that the so-called statement (confession) of the detenu which is said to have been recorded on 164. 81 and which formed the basis for the passing of the detention order, was not a voluntary statement but was extorted from the detenu by the Customs authorities under physical duress and as such it could not form the needed basis or provide the needed material for passing of the impugned order of detention. It may be noted that the detenu in his petition has called his said statement as extorted confession. These words do imply that some sort of statement or confession was made by him which was recorded by the Customs officials. These words do not mean that no statement or confession was made by the detenu. The question as to whether the said statement or confession was made voluntary or was extorted from the detenu by the Customs authorities, we are afraid, cannot be gone into by this Court. It is well settled law that the nature of the jurisdiction which this Court exercise while dealing with a case under Article 226 of the Constitution is that we are not called upon to examine the veracity or otherwise of the allegations made by the parties to it against each other. This is a function which the law has squarely placed on the shoulders of the Advisory Board. All this Court can consider while dealing with a writ petition for the issue of a writ of habeas corpus against the order of detention is whether then was sufficient material on record to justify the order of detention. This Court does not function as an appellate authority and is not called upon to decide the correctness of the allegations made by the parties against each other. Under these circumstances we do not dwell upon the point as to whether the said statement or confession was extorted one or not At any rate the said statement was there and was considered as a material for the subjective satisfaction in passing the order of detention. Thus this point is baseless. ( 10 ) (4) Lastly it was contended that though the detention order dated 6. 11. Thus this point is baseless. ( 10 ) (4) Lastly it was contended that though the detention order dated 6. 11. 81 was confirmed by the State Government on 18. 7. 83 vide annexure 5 to the writ petition yet it was mentioned in it that till further orders the detenu will be detained w. e. f. 26. 5. 83 for one year. It is pointed out that this detention of one year would go up to 25. 5. 84 whereas the detenu had surrendered on 23. 5. 83 -as is evident from the Certificate of the Superintendent, Sadar Lockup, Gorakhpur, annexure 1. It is argued that since the detenu had surrendered in pursuance of the said detention order dated 6. 11. 81 so the period of detention of one year would start from 23. 5. 83 and not from 26. 5. 83 and consequently would end on 22. 5. 84 whereas under the said order dated 18. 7. 83 he would be kept under detention till 25. 5. 84. For this reason it is argued that the detention order is invalid. However section 11 of the Act provides for the modification or rectification of a detention order by the authorities mentioned therein. To our mind, the above confusion about the date of detention arose from the fact that the State Government having served the detention order on the detenu on 26. 5. 83, took that date as the starting point of detention but the fact remains that the detenu had surrendered on 23. 5. 83. So the period of detention should be taken to have started from that date. We regard this mistake In the subsequent confirmation order dated 18. 7. 83 as a mere bonafide mistake or irregularity which could always be modified or rectified in the exercise of powers conferred by section 11 of the Act. We do not propose to strike out the detention order on this infirmity. Rather we do hope that the authorities concerned would stand well-advised to rectify the said mistake or irregularity by exercise of power of modification and rectification of the detention order under section II of the Act. ( 11 ) THE writ petition is, therefore, dismissed with the above observation and expectation. Writ Petition dismissed .