JUDGMENT Jamdar, J.-The petitioner is brother in-law of one Raymond William Correia @ Royba, an employee of the Gulf Air Lines. Raymond William Correia is detained by virtue of an order dated 11-5-1984, passed under Section 3 (1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974, (hereinafter referred to as the COFEPOSA Act) with a view to preventing him from abetting smuggling of goods. The grounds of detention were also formulated on 11th May 1984 and were served on the detenu -along with the detention order on 18-5-1984. 2. On the basis of the material placed before him, the detaining authority came to the following conclusion: “You, in the capacity of counter supervisor of Gulf Air Check in counter, helped passenger Chandra Bhatia for fraudulent check in formalities, who was later on caught while attempting to smugglien foreign currency out of India. It is clear from the above, that you abetted Chandra Bhatia in his smuggling activities. Government, therefore, considers it necessary to detain you under COFEPOSA Act, 1974, with a view to prevent you from indulging in such type of prejudicial activities in future." 3. Before considering the challenge made to the detention order we would like to state in nut shell the circumstances in which the detention order came to be passed. 4. In the early hours of 18-2-1984, the Customs Officer of Air Intelligence Unit. Sahar Airport. Bombay during the course of routine surveillance suspected one, passenger at the check in counter of Gulf Airlines who had not checked in any baggage and did not have any other baggage with him, except a plastic shopping bag. This person was one Chandra Bhatia who held Indian Passport No. U-433.114 issued at Dubai on 8-6-1983 and valid up to 8-6-1988 and was in possession of Gulf Air Ticket No. 072-44022339966 for journey Bombay/Dubai/Bombay/Delhi showing checked-in baggage nil and unchecked baggage 0.5 kg. bearing No. P-280. He was also in possession of Gulf Air Boarding Pass showing details of flight No. O53 and destination DXB dated 18.2-1984. The Customs Officer, who was observing the activities of Chandra Bhatia, directed Mahendra Keshav, loader of Gulf Air Lines, that in case the said passenger brought in baggage to the check-in counter, the same should be kept aside. He was also in possession of Gulf Air Boarding Pass showing details of flight No. O53 and destination DXB dated 18.2-1984. The Customs Officer, who was observing the activities of Chandra Bhatia, directed Mahendra Keshav, loader of Gulf Air Lines, that in case the said passenger brought in baggage to the check-in counter, the same should be kept aside. This passenger Chandra Bhatia, who was asked by his maternal father in-law, on Mathuradas to go to Dubai with one bag containing foreign currency, collected his boarding pass after check in for flight No. CF 053 and went near the gate where Mathura Das Bhatia was standing with a brown coloured zipper hand bag. 5. Before that. Mathuradas Bhatia bad given Chandra Bhatia to understand that he had made arrangements at the Airport and that there would not be any trouble there. Mathuradas accompanied Chandra Bhatia to the airport in his own car. He asked Chandra Bhatia to wait outside the airport and alone went inside. Some time later, he returned with the detenu' who was wearing Gulf Air Lines Uniform. They waited some distance away and Mathuradas pointed Chandra Bhatia to the detenu. 6. As mentioned above after collecting the boarding pass, Chandra Bhatia went to the gate where Mathuradas was standing. Mathura Das was having a brown coloured zipper hand bag with him. He asked Chandra Bhatia to keep the said bag on the Gulf Air counter as per his signal. Accordingly, Chandra Bhatia went back to the Gulf Air counter with the bag and after getting the signal from Mathura Das he kept the said hand bag on the check in counter where the detenu was standing. The detenu then gave a baggage tag to Mrs. Pali Samson who was working at the said check in counter and told her to put Sr. No. 25 on the tag and also mentioned the name of the passenger as. Chandra - Accordingly. Mrs. Samson wrote the said number on the baggage tag and handed over the full tag to the detenu, who passed on the same to the passenger, who in torn handed it over to the loader Mahendra Mehre the loader placed that tag on the hand bag. Chandra - Accordingly. Mrs. Samson wrote the said number on the baggage tag and handed over the full tag to the detenu, who passed on the same to the passenger, who in torn handed it over to the loader Mahendra Mehre the loader placed that tag on the hand bag. In the mean, time the Customs Officer, who has given instruction to the loader came there and directed the loader to keep the said hand bag in the customs enclosure for checking. The said officer then made marking on, the manifesto supplied to the customs counter and located the passenger at Sr. No. 25 by name Chandra Mohan. He took him to the baggage examination area and pointed out the zipper hand bag in question to him. Chandra Mohan disowned the bag. The customs officer then called the Gulf Air Staff and made inquiries with them. It was revealed that the hand bag in question could not be of passenger No. 25 since the identification tag on the bag showed the destination as Dubai, whereas the claim tag on the ticket of Chandra Mohan showed the final destination as Tripoli. The Gulf air staff was, therefore, asked to produce the owner of the brown coloured zipper hand bag. Finally the Customs Officer located Chandra Bhatia in the security area. The loader Shri Mahendra identified Chandra Bhatia as the person who gave the zipper hand bag at the check in counter and thereafter both Chandra Mohan and Chandra Bhatia were of loaded and taken to the departure lounge. When questioned, Chandra Mohan disowned the bag, white Chandra Bhatia claimed that the said hand bag was his own. 7. The brown coloured zipper hand bag was opened in the presence of panchas by Chandra Bhatia himself with the help of silver coloured key, which was kept in side pocket of the said bag. The hand bag contained foreign currency notes, travellers cheques, bank drafts of various denominations valued at Rs. 24,86,663.71. The said articles along with the zipper bag were attached under a panchnama, in the presence of Chandra Bhatia. The person of Chandra Bhatia was also searched in the presence of panchas, but nothing incriminating was found. Thereafter the residential premises of one Harkishan das Bhatia were also searched and some documents were seized. 24,86,663.71. The said articles along with the zipper bag were attached under a panchnama, in the presence of Chandra Bhatia. The person of Chandra Bhatia was also searched in the presence of panchas, but nothing incriminating was found. Thereafter the residential premises of one Harkishan das Bhatia were also searched and some documents were seized. Before that the person of the detenu was also searched in presence of panchas and some documents were seized from his possession. The residential premises of the detenu were also searched and some documents were seized from his residence. Statements of Chandra Bhatia were recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act on 18-2-1984 and on 19-2-1984. Statements of the detenu were also recorded on the same day under Section 108 of the Customs Act and statement of Harkishandas Bhatia was recorded on 18-2-1984. The statement of Mrs. Samson and he loader Mahendra were also recorded on the same day. Chandra Bhatia and detenu were arrested under Section 4 of the Customs Act on 18-2-1984 and 19-2-1984 respectively. Mathuradas was also arrested on 15-3-1984 and his statements were recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act on 15th and 16th March, 1984. 8. As mentioned above, the detention order and the grounds of detention were served on the detenu on 18th May 1984. Copies of the statements and documents placed before the detaining authority, as mentioned in the list, Ex. C, were also enclosed with the grounds of detention. 9. The petitioner challenged the detention order on various grounds mentioned in clauses (a) to (y) of para 3 of the petition. In clause (g) of para (3) of the petition, he averred as follows: "The petitioner submits that immediately the residence of the detenu was searched on 19.2.84 but nothing incriminating was found at his residence indicating any involvement in the past or in the 'present incident, or connecting the detenu with either Chandra Bhatia and/or Mathuradas Bhatia in any illegal activities." This position was stated, obviously with reference to the following averments made by the detaining authority in. para 16 of the grounds of detention: “Your residential premises situated at 501 Sunbeam Apartment, North Avenue, Santacruz (West) Bombay, was searched and some documents were seized 10. The seizure panchnama, Dt. 18.2.1984, under which these documents were attached, was placed before the detaining authority and a copy thereof was furnished to the detenu. para 16 of the grounds of detention: “Your residential premises situated at 501 Sunbeam Apartment, North Avenue, Santacruz (West) Bombay, was searched and some documents were seized 10. The seizure panchnama, Dt. 18.2.1984, under which these documents were attached, was placed before the detaining authority and a copy thereof was furnished to the detenu. The averments in the panchnama about the seizure of the' aforesaid documents are as follows: "During the course of search of the bed room which is occupied by Raymond W. Correia, eight (8) slips of paper, one embarkation 'card, two telex messages, Ode Cathay' Pacific ticket No. 1604203676158 issued in the name of Raymond Correia, one Thomas Cook Travellen Cheques booklet with two slips were recovered from one of the drawer of the dressing table in to said bed room. These papers were missed amongst the' order papers which were of no importance. Nothing else incriminating was found in the said room. 11. In view of these averments in the panchnama, recitals in para 16 of the grounds of detention do give an impression, as rightly contended by Shri Karmali, that some incriminating documents were recovered from the residence of the detenu and that this circumstance weighed with the detaining authority while arriving at his subjective satisfaction. It is in this context that the averments in para 3(g) of the petition were made. In reply to the averments in para 3(g) of the petition, the detaining authority asserted as follows in his affidavit in reply Dt. 15.12.1984: "With reference to para 3 (g) of the petition, I say that the involvement of the detenu is established beyond doubt in the abetment of smuggling prior to the search of his residence. It is further established by the evidence on record which is relied upon by no while passing the order of detention that the detenu hatched up It conspiracy in connivance with Mathuradas and Chandra Bhatia. This fact is admitted by the detenu." 12. Apart from the fact that there is absolutely no basis for holding that the detenu had hatched up a conspiracy, the detenu never admitted having entered into any sort of conspiracy with Mathuradas and or Chandra Bhatia. There is nothing in the material placed before the detaining authority from which it can be even indirectly inferred that the detenu gave such an admission at any stage of the investigation by the customs authorities. There is nothing in the material placed before the detaining authority from which it can be even indirectly inferred that the detenu gave such an admission at any stage of the investigation by the customs authorities. As rightly urged by Shri Karmali, on his own admission the detaining authority was influenced by extraneous material in arriving at his subjective satisfaction on a very vital aspect of the matter. As rightly urged by Shri Karmali, this vitiates the detention order. 13. But this is not all. The order' suffers also from .the vice of non-application of mind on the part of the detaining authority. In para 3 (y) (bb) of the petition, the petitioner averred as follows: “In the grounds of detention the detaining authority has stated that there was a search of the detenu's person as well as residential premises and some documents were found as detailed in panchnama, dated 18-2-84. I submit copies of the said documents have not been placed for the consideration of the detaining authority, nor copies of the same supplied to the detenu to enable him to make 'proper and complete, representation against this detention, order and the detenu is denied fair opportunity of getting copies of the documents found from his person as well as from his residential premises, which is in fact referred to and relied upon in the grounds of detention by the detaining authority." 14. The detaining authority controverted this submission and stated as follows in para 36 of the affidavit in reply: "With reference to para 3 (y) (bb) of the petition I say that the contentions of the petitioner are untrue and hence denied. The documents seized from the detenu's residence had nothing to do with the said seizure and being irrelevant to the seizure case. These documents were not placed before me nor relied upon by me while passing the order of detention." 15. As mentioned above, the averments in para 16 of the grounds of detention do indicate that the detaining authority took into consideration the circumstances that some documents were recovered from the person and residence of the detenu. Shri Barday, the learned Additional P. P. also pointed out that some of the documents seized from the possession of ther4etenu were in fact placed before the detaining authority arid copies there of were supplied to the detenu. Shri Barday, the learned Additional P. P. also pointed out that some of the documents seized from the possession of ther4etenu were in fact placed before the detaining authority arid copies there of were supplied to the detenu. This position can be seen from the list of documents, Ex. C. Obviously, therefore, the statement that those documents were not placed before the detaining authority is factually incorrect. It means that those documents were not examined by the detaining authority before passing the order. Even then he asserted in para 36 of his reply that those documents were irrelevant in the seizure case. The conclusion, therefore, is inescapable that the detaining authority did not take into consideration the, entire material placed before him. Moreover, even though according to him the documents were irrelevant be made mention of this seizure in the grounds of detention, in such a manner as to give an impression that the documents were incriminating. The detention order, therefore, de served td be quashed also on the ground of non-application of mind, on the part of the, detaining authority. 16. In view of this, it is not necessary to consider the other challenges made to the detention order. We allow the petition, make the rule absolute in terms of prayers (a) and (b) of the petition, quash the order of detention and direct that the detenu be released from detention forthwith, if not required in any other proceedings.