B. K. MEHTA, J. ( 1 ) SINCE the impugned detention arising out of alleged prohibited acticity and the impugned detention orders have been made on the same day and because common questions of law have been raised in these two petitions we intend to dispose of them by this common judgment. The respective petitioners of these petitions are wives of the respective detenu Noormamad Kasam Sanghar and Salemamad Karim Bhagad. By these two petitions the respective petitioners challenged the impugned order of detention dated October 3 1985 passed by the Deputy Secretary to the State Government in the Home Department in exercise of the powers of the State Government under Section 3 of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act 1974 (hereinafter referred to as COFEPOSA for short) without specifying the period of detention with a view to preventing them from smuggling goods. The grounds furnished to the respective detenu may be adverted to for the purpose of appreciating the necessity of the dete0ntion. ( 2 ) IT is alleged that on March 31 1985 during the search of the residential premises of Noormamad Kasam Sanghar at Salaya the Police Officers of Khambhalia Police Station recovered some contraband goods namely Synthetic Fabrics Telephones etc. Which were of foreign origin and were found packed in steel trunks and hassian bags which were stored in the kitchens of the said premises. They were estimated to be of value of Rs. 3 17 863. 4 and the Police Officers handed over these goods seized to the Customs Officers who under the reasonable belief that they were smuggled goods and liable to be confiscated under the Customs Act 1952 put them under seizure. It is said that in the statement recorded by the Customs Authorities of Noormamad Kasam Sanghar he stated that he wanted to pay appropriate amount of customs duty for the import of the said goods. There were other persons who were present at the time of raid but they denied to have any knowledge about the goods. The detaining authority was therefore satisfied that Noormamad Kasam Sanghar was one of the persons concerned in the act of smuggling of contraband goods which were recovered from his premises and that it was therefore necessary in order to prevent him from indulging in prohibited activities in future to detain him. The detaining authority was therefore satisfied that Noormamad Kasam Sanghar was one of the persons concerned in the act of smuggling of contraband goods which were recovered from his premises and that it was therefore necessary in order to prevent him from indulging in prohibited activities in future to detain him. As regards the detenu Salamamad Karim Bhagad whose detention is challenged by the Special Criminal Application No. 941 the grounds which have been furnished to the detenu in support of the impugned detention are similar except that the assertion that the detaining authority was satisfied that the detenu Salemamad Karim Bhagad was also one of the persons concerned in acts of smuggling of contraband goods 1147 which were recovered from the residential premises of Noormamad and he was satisfied that unless Salemamad is detained under COFEPOSA it would not be possible to prevent him from carrying on the prohibited activities. ( 3 ) IT should be recalled that in the grounds furnished to the respective detenu it has been inter alia stated that the detaining authority was aware of the fact that the detenu Noormamad was arrested on 31st March 1985 and on the date of the detention order he was released on bail and similarly detenu Salemamad was arrested on 9th September 1985 and on the date of the detention order he was on bail. The detaining authority was further aware of the fact that show cause-notice was issued by the Customs Authorities calling upon the respective detenus to show cause as to why the goods should not be confiscated and penalty be levied against them. The grounds also reiterated that while arriving at the above satisfaction the detaining authority has taken into consideration the aspect of adjudication proceedings and prosecution proceedings and that it would take long time to finalise the matter. ( 4 ) ON Rule Nisi being issued on these petitions on the State of Gujarat as well as the Union of India appearance has been entered into on behalf of the respective Governments. However reply-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the State Government alone while the Union Government has not thought fit to file any reply-affidavit of the Government or on behalf of the Customs authorities. However reply-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the State Government alone while the Union Government has not thought fit to file any reply-affidavit of the Government or on behalf of the Customs authorities. On behalf of the State Government the then Under Secretary Shri M. T. Parmar has filed reply-affidavit dated December 20 1985 Additional affidavit of one Shri B. D. Valvai Police Inspector C. I. D. (Crime) has been also filed on behalf of the State Government so as to satisfy the Court that the detenu was able to communicate and understand the Gujarati language and the grounds were read over and explained to respective detenu in Gujarati. ( 5 ) AT the time of hearing of these two petitions the following common contentions have been urged by Mr. C. K. Takwani the learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the respective petitioner: (I) Inasmuch as the impugned detention order has been made on October 3 1985 though admittedly the prejudicial activity had come to the light on 31-3-1985 when the Police Officers attached to the Police Station Khambhalia had raided the residential place of detenu Noormamad Kasam Sanghar and his involvement was disclosed since he was arrested on the same day after the contraband articles were seized and handed over to the Customs Authorities and that detenu Noormamad Kasam Sanghar in his statement dated March 31 1985 inter alia stated that Salemamad Karim Bhagad was the tindel of the vessel Khwajamad in which these goods were brought the alleged involvement of Salemamad was also disclosed on that day and in absence of any satisfactory reason as to why no detention was made within reasonable time thereof the life-link between the prejudicial activity and the purpose of the detention having been snapped the detention order is vitiated and therefore bad in law and void. (II) There is a clear non-application of mind on the part of the detaining authority inasmuch as he has not considered as to how the alternative course of criminal prosecution of the detenu was not sufficient or adequate on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and therefore impugned detention is vitiated bad in law and void. .