Judgment PREM SHANKER SAHAY, J. 1. The petitioner initially had challenged his arrest and remand by the order of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patna and the direction to send him to Delhi for production before the Delhi Administration, but the petitioner now challenges his detention under the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act 1974 (hereinafter to be referred as COFEPOSA). 2. In order to decide the controversy in this case it will be necessary to refer to certain facts. The petitioner arrived at Patna Airport from Kathmandu by Indian Air Lines flight No. IC 246 on 23-6-1984 and he was apprehended by the Superintendent of Customs, Patna Airport, who is respondent 3 in this case. Then he learnt that he was wanted in connection with a detention order issued on 4-1-1980 by the Delhi Administration. The petitioner was produced before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patna, and application was filed for remanding the petitioner for interrogation, a copy of the petition has been filed as Annexure-1. In pursuance of that application the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patna, ordered the petitioner to be detained at Sachivalaya Police Station by his order dt. 24-6-1984, a copy of the same has been filed as Annexure 2. The learned Magistrate had also directed that the Senior Superintendent of Police, Patna, will make necessary arrangements for taking the petitioner to Delhi to be produced before the Collector of Customs, Central Revenue Building, New Delhi. The petitioner moved this Court and by order dt. 27-6-1984 an order was passed by this Court that the petitioner shall not be taken away outside the jurisdiction of this Court and the application was kept pending. A counter-affidavit was filed by the Customs Department in which it was stated that the petitioner was involved in smuggling of watches worth rupees three lacs and fifty thousand and he was the brain behind the same for bringing them from Hong Kong and other foreign places. A counter-affidavit was filed by the Customs Department in which it was stated that the petitioner was involved in smuggling of watches worth rupees three lacs and fifty thousand and he was the brain behind the same for bringing them from Hong Kong and other foreign places. It has further been stated that a case was registered under the Customs Act and the petitioner was directed to appear before the authorities but he evaded and a notice, technically known as Red Alert Notice, was issued on 26-10-1979 to all concerned that he should be arrested where-ever he is found, a copy of the notice has been filed and marked as Annexure-A. Similar notification was issued in the Gazette directing him to appear under S. 7(1)(b) of the COFEPOSA Act which is Annexure-B. In spite of all these the petitioner did not appear and a fresh Red Alert Notice was issued which is Annexure-C. The relevant portion may be usefully quoted :- "When arrested, he should be escorted to the nearest Police Station for his detention under COFEPOSA Act, 1974, by Police Authorities and simultaneously Shri Somnath Pal, Dy. Collector of Customs, Central Excise Collectorate, New Delhi should be informed on Telephone No. 273369 (Office). The Directorate Headquarters should also be informed of the results of action in due course." 3. It is further stated that the petitioner alighted from Kathmandu and came to the counter of the customs department and he disclosed his name and the Officer on duty grew suspicious and on checking various kinds of foreign goods worth Rs. 1390.00 along international driving licence, ticket etc. were recovered and inventory was prepared. It is further stated that the petitioner made voluntary statement accepting his involvement in the smuggling. Copies of the statements have been filed and marked as Annexures-D and D1. In the supplementary affidavit filed on behalf of the Department it has further been stated that the petitioner had violated the provisions of the Customs Act and he was liable for prosecution under S. 104 of the Act The prayer made before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patna, for sending the petitioner to Delhi in pursuance of the Red Alert Notice has been justified. It has been further stated in the forwarding note that due to inadvertence it was left out that the petitioner has also violated the provisions of the Customs Act and another petition was filed, copies thereof have been filed and marked as Annexures-E and E1. The petitioner was served with a detention order passed by the Delhi Administration on 30-6-1984, and this fact has been admitted in the supplementary affidavit filed on behalf of the petitioner and Annexure-3 is the order of detention and along with the same the grounds and the list of documents were also supplied to him. In the counter-affidavit it has been denied that the petitioner was connected with the smuggling : rather he had been staying in Phillipine since 1978 and the confessional statements as contained in Annexures-D and D1 were made, under threat and coercion. Therefore, a prayer was made to quash the detention order and para 10 runs as follows : "That in reply to the statements made in paras 14, 15 and 16, I say and submit that in the facts and circumstances of this case this Hon ble Court has got jurisdiction to quash the illegal detention order of the petitioner". The fact that the petitioner had been absconding and evading has been denied and no action was taken under S. 7 of the COFEPOSA Act. 4 In another supplementary affidavit filed on behalf of the petitioner, it is stated that a representation was filed and as the petitioner wanted to appear before the Advisory Board we, by our order dt. 22-8-1984, allowed the petitioner to be taken to Delhi to appear before the Advisory Board and to be sent back again at Patna after the work was over. According to the affidavit the petitioner appeared before the Board on 24-8-1984 and a point had also been raised, which would be discussed later, that the recommendation of the Board has not been communicated though eleven weeks had expired from the date of his detention. It may also be mentioned that the Delhi Administration was added as respondent 4 and affidavit was also filed on behalf of the Delhi Administration in which the apprehension of the petitioner was justified in pursuance of the Red Alert Notices and his failure to appear before the Customs Authorities. It may also be mentioned that the Delhi Administration was added as respondent 4 and affidavit was also filed on behalf of the Delhi Administration in which the apprehension of the petitioner was justified in pursuance of the Red Alert Notices and his failure to appear before the Customs Authorities. The fact that the petitioner was in Phillipine for a continuous period of four years was denied and in support of that the Passport and confessional statement of the petitioner has been relied upon. It has further been stated that the petitioner was evading and, therefore, the order of detention could not be served upon him. It has further been stated that all the formalities were complied with and the order of detention of the petitioner was justified. Replies to the counter affidavit on behalf of the Customs Department and the Delhi Administration have also been filed which will be discussed at proper place. 5. Mr. Basudeva Prasad, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, has raised a number of contentions which I shall deal with separately and I may also mention that other points were also raised in the petition but have not been pressed. Originally the prayer for remand of the petitioner by the Customs Department was made in view of the detention order but now in the counter-affidavit, it has been stated that the petitioner had committed offences under the Customs Act which was left due to some mistake and, thereafter another petition was filed before the Chief Judicial Magistrate. Now in my opinion, this point has become wholly irrelevant in view of the fact that the petitioner has challenged his detention order. Even if the order of remand passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patna, is held to be bad he cannot get an effective relief in view of the order of detention passed by the Delhi Administration. Therefore, the moot point for consideration will be whether the detention of the petitioner by the Delhi Administration is valid or not and now I shall take up the points raised by Mr. Prasad. 6. It has been urged that there has been a delay in passing the order, the order is vague and there is much time lag between the incident complained of, and the issuance of the order, some of the grounds are stale and irrelevant. Prasad. 6. It has been urged that there has been a delay in passing the order, the order is vague and there is much time lag between the incident complained of, and the issuance of the order, some of the grounds are stale and irrelevant. All these matters are interconnected and I propose to consider them together. The order of detention has been passed by the Delhi Administration under S. 3(1) of the COFEPOSA Act which may be usefully quoted. "Whereas, the Administrator of the Union Territory of Delhi is satisfied with respect to the person known as Shri Mohan Singh s/o Shri Jagat Singh r/o D-10, Rajouri Garden, New Delhi that with a view to preventing him from dealing in smuggled goods viz. watches and watch movements otherwise than by engaging in transporting or concealing or keeping smuggled goods, it is necessary to make the following order". 7. From the grounds the Customs Authorities came to know regarding the smuggling of watches some time in August, 1979, when one Bhupendra Singh was arrested at the Palam Airport and from his possession smuggled watches were recovered. From his interrogation many things came to light and also the complicity of the petitioner. The Customs Authorities tried their level best to examine the petitioner but he could not be traced. Thereafter a Red Alert Notice was issued on 26-10-1979 which is Annexure-A, and ultimately detention order was issued on 4-1-1980. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that there has also been a delay in passing the order and, thereafter, we directed the counsel for the Delhi Administration to produce the original records and it was actually produced before us and we have perused the same. The enquiry started in Sept. 1979, and the last statement was recorded on 26-10-1979. Thereafter proposal for detention was made on 19-11-1979 which was considered by the Screening Committee on 21-11-1979. Meeting was held on 4-12-1979 and minutes were prepared on 10-12-1979. The proposal was sent to the Home Department, Delhi Administration on 13-12-1979 and grounds were prepared and sent to the Law Department on 19-12-1979. The Law Department sent it to the Home Department which was ultimately approved and returned to the Law Department on 22-12-1979. It was placed before the Home Secretary on 26-12-1979 and ultimately before the Lt. Governor, who approved it on 29-12-1979, and the order of detention was passed on 4-1-1980. The Law Department sent it to the Home Department which was ultimately approved and returned to the Law Department on 22-12-1979. It was placed before the Home Secretary on 26-12-1979 and ultimately before the Lt. Governor, who approved it on 29-12-1979, and the order of detention was passed on 4-1-1980. From the aforesaid facts, I am satisfied that there has been no delay and rather the Authorities have acted in a vigilant manner. No doubt, the detention order of 1980 was served upon the petitioner on 1984 but the petitioner himself was not available in this country and according to his own affidavit he was living in Phillipine. Therefore, he himself was responsible for the same and no grievance can be made regarding this as held in the case of Bhawarlal Ganeshmalji V/s. State of Tamil Nadu, AIR 1979 SC 541 : (1975 Cri LJ 462). Regarding proximity, I am tempted to quote the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Gora V/s. State of West Bengal, AIR 1975 SC 473 : (1975 Cri LJ 429) where it has been held as follows : "The test of proximity is not a rigid or mechanical test to be blindly applied by merely counting the number of months between the offending acts and the order of detention. It is a subsidiary test evolved by the Court for the purpose of determining the main question where the past activity of the detenu is such that from it a reasonable prognosis can be made as to the future conduct of the detenu and its utility, therefore, lies only in so far as it subserves that purpose and it cannot be allowed to dominate or drown it. The prejudicial act of the detenu may in a given case be of such a character as to suggest that it is a part of an organised operation of a complex of agencies collaborating to clandestinely and secretly carry on such activities and in such a case the detaining authority may reasonably feel satisfied that the prejudicial act of the detenu which has come to light cannot be a solitary or isolated act, but must be part of a course of conduct of such or similar activities clandestinely or secretly carried on by the detenu and it is, therefore, necessary to detain him with a view to preventing him from indulging in such activities in the future." 8. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State has relied on the decision in the case of Ashok Narain V/s. Union of India, 1982 UJ (SC) 484 : (1982 Cri LJ 1729) and one un-reported judgment of this Court in the case of Kewal Krishna V/s. Union of India, (Cr WJC 302 of 1983 decided on 16-12-1983) and in all these cases it has been held that each case has to be decided on its own merits and no hard and fast rule can be applied regarding time. Mr. Prasad has, then, urged that the proceeding under the Customs Act had, already been initiated and, therefore, it was not necessary to pass an order of detention. He has also submitted that a fresh application of mind was necessary in order to show that the authorities were aware of the fact that the petitioner was also wanted in a case under the Customs Act. This submission is also devoid of any substance. The grounds of detention clearly mention that the petitioner was connected with smuggling activities and in spite of best efforts could not be traced and in order to prevent such smuggling the detention order was passed which is quite in consonance with the provisions of S. 3(1) of the Act. It is not a case where the detenu was in jail and then the order was passed and the case of Merugu Satyanarayana V/s. State of Andhra Pradesh, AIR 1982 SC 1543 : (1982 Cri LJ 2357), has, therefore, no application to the facts of the instant case. It is not a case where the detenu was in jail and then the order was passed and the case of Merugu Satyanarayana V/s. State of Andhra Pradesh, AIR 1982 SC 1543 : (1982 Cri LJ 2357), has, therefore, no application to the facts of the instant case. The question whether a substantive case will serve the purpose or an order of detention will be necessary is within the domain of detaining authority who is the best judge for the same. Further, it has been submitted that the grounds are irrelevant and vague and, therefore, the detention order should be quashed. In support of that reliance has been placed in the cases of Hari Ram V/s. Sheodial Ram (1888) 16 Ind App 12; Md. Yusuf V/s. State of Jammu and Kashmir, AIR 1979 SC 1925 ; Sk. Nizamuddin V/s. State of West Bengal, AIR 1974 SC 2353 : (1975 Cri LJ 12) and Shiv Prasad Bhatnagar V/s. State of Madhya Pradesh, 1981 Cri LJ 594 : ( AIR 1981 SC 870 ). Our attention has also have been drawn to the various paras of the detention order in which it has been mentioned that the petitioner had been dealing in contraband articles. .For the purpose of dealing, according to Mr. Prasad, it was necessary also to mention the names of the persons who were the actual buyers and then only it could be said that the petitioner was dealing in the articles. He has further, argued that dealing and master-minding the operation are two different concepts and should be separately construed. Mr. Pandey, appearing on behalf of the Customs Department as also the Delhi Administration has submitted that it is the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority which is relevant and this Court cannot go into the question of sufficiency or otherwise of the materials. Reliance, in this connection, has been placed in the cases of Haji Ibrahim V/s. State of Madhya Pradesh, 1975 Cri LJ 1438 (Madh Pra) and D. S. Surana V/s. Union of India, (1976) 80 Cal WN 605. 9. After going through the aforesaid decision and after hearing the learned counsel for the parties, in my opinion, the contentions raised on behalf of the respondents have to be accepted. 9. After going through the aforesaid decision and after hearing the learned counsel for the parties, in my opinion, the contentions raised on behalf of the respondents have to be accepted. The broad features relating to the acts connected with smuggling have been given in the grounds and this Court cannot sit on appeal to scrutinise the same and come to a different conclusion. In some cases there may not be positive material of smuggling but abetting such offence will also be sufficient to form an opinion as held in the case of Narendra V/s. B. B. Gujral, AIR 1979 SC 420 : (1979 Cri LJ 469). Moreover, even if some grounds are nonexistent or irrelevant that will not invalidate the order of detention in view of S. 5A of the Act, according to which if there are two or more grounds then such order shall not be invalid or inoperative because some of the grounds are vague, non-existent, not relevant, not connected or not proximately connected with such person or invalid for any other reason whatsoever. There is no substance in this contention of the learned counsel. 10. Lastly, it has been submitted that there has been a clear violation of S. 8(c) of the Act and on that ground alone the detention should be quashed. Every case of detention has to be placed before the Advisory Board and under S. 8(b) it is incumbent upon the Government to place the same within five weeks from the detention and the Advisory Board has to give its opinion, whether or not there is sufficient cause of detention, within eleven weeks from the date of detention under S. 8(c) of the Act. According to the learned counsel, the petitioner was arrested on 23-6-1984 and eleven weeks will expire on 8-9-1984 and, admittedly, the opinion of the Advisory Board was not given and this fact was accepted by the learned counsel appearing for the Delhi Administration. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents has, on the other hand, submitted that time will run not from 23-6-1984, when he was arrested at Patna Airport, but from 30-6-1984. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents has, on the other hand, submitted that time will run not from 23-6-1984, when he was arrested at Patna Airport, but from 30-6-1984. In this connection reliance has been placed in the case of Nishikant V/s. State of West Bengal, AIR 1972 SC 1497 : (1972 Cri LJ 904) in which it has been clearly held that time of detention will run from the time the detenu is arrested under the Order. No doubt, the petitioner was arrested on 23-6-1984 and Annexure-1 also mentions the fact that he has been arrested in connection with the order of detention issued by the Delhi Administration but, admittedly, the order of detention was served on 30-6-1984 when he was lodged in Patna Jail. His detention in Patna Jail from 23-6-1984 to 29-6-1984 may or may not be valid but that will not give an effective relief to the petitioner unless the detention order is held to be bad. Moreover, in such case the Court has to consider the legality of detention on the date of hearing and no writ can be issued if detention on that date is lawful as held in the case of Talib Hussain V/s. State of Jammu and Kashmir, AIR 1971 SC 62 . 11. Thus, all the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner fail and I find that there is no merit in this application and it is, accordingly, dismissed. The interim order passed by this Court that the petitioner shall not be taken away outside the jurisdiction of this Court also stands vacated. SYED HAIDER SHAUKAT ABIDI, J. 12 I agree.