Judgement DAUD, J.:- This petition takes exception to the validity and continuance of a detention order dated 30th September 1986 passed under Section 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (52 of 1974). 2. The detenu-petitioner came to Bombay on 11-2-1986 by flight No. EK 500. He had three pieces of baggage with him and upon a noting made one of the said baggages was detained as it was declared to be containing a Sony make colour T.V. valued at Rs. 5,000/-. The set was said to be in a carton which was kept on a trolley. This was the only item declared by the detenu as dutiable. The detenu replied in the negative when asked by the Customs Officers if he had any concealed gold or wrist watches inside the T.V. set. In the presence of panchas the carton containing the T.V. set was opened because it was found to be heavier in weight than what it should have normally weighed. At the scale, it was found to weigh 34.5 kgs. whereas a T.V. set normally weighed 29.5 kgs. The set was examined in detail and found concealed therein were 42 gold bars of 10 tolas each. The gold bars were brought out and attached being liable to confiscation under the provisions of the Customs Act, 1962. On 7-3-1986 the detenu moved the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, 8th Court, Esplanade, Bombay, for being released on bail. The Magistrate acceded to the request and upon bail having been furnished the petitioner was released the same day. His statements were recorded on dates other than 11-12-1986 he went on maintaining that he was of unaware the concealment of the gold in the T.V. set. Last, his statement was recorded on 4-4-1986. The sponsoring authority put up the proposal for the issue of a detention order against the detenu before the screening committee. This committee accepted the request on 11-4-1986. The requisite number of sets of the relevant papers were prepared and together with the proposal sent to the detaining authority on 23-6-1986. The detaining authority being an Officer of the State of Maharashtra approved the proposal and sent for Konkani translations of the relevant papers. These were received by 19-9-1986 and on 30-9-1986 the detention order was passed. The same could not be served upon the detenu for he had absconded. The detaining authority being an Officer of the State of Maharashtra approved the proposal and sent for Konkani translations of the relevant papers. These were received by 19-9-1986 and on 30-9-1986 the detention order was passed. The same could not be served upon the detenu for he had absconded. Attempts were made to trace him but it was only in January 1989 that the detaining authority could learn of the incarceration of the detenu by the Bandra Police. The order and grounds of detention were served upon the detenu on 19-1-1989. 3. A number of grounds have been taken to assail the order of detention continuance. We restrict ourselves to one for that by itself is enough to void the detention order. The grounds of detention served upon the petitioner give a re'sume' of what took place on 11-2-1986, the order for bail passed on 7-3-1986, the number of occasions of which the petitioner was interrogated and a gist of what was stated by him. Portion contains a recital about the detenu maintaining his ignorance about gold being concealed in the T.V. set and his not suspecting the concealment thinking that Jhaveri the person at whose instance he had brought the consignment to India had paid him money for the work he had undertakes for him and his knowledge that bringing gold into India without the permission of R.B.I. was an offence. Then comes the important recital which reads thus :- "Notwithstanding your denial, it is clear that you smuggled into India the seized gold for monetary consideration. Government therefore, considers it necessary to detain you under the COFEPOSA Act, 1974, to prevent you from indulging in such type of prejudical activities in future." Learned Counsel appearing for the detenu contends that the recital reproduced above does not contain an important averment viz. the inference wherefore the detaining authority has thought it necessary to pass an order of detention against his client. This, according to learned Counsel, vitiates the order of detention. The contention taken by detenu's Counsel is consistent with the decision of a Division Bench of this Court given in Criminal Writ Petition No. 794 of 1988. the inference wherefore the detaining authority has thought it necessary to pass an order of detention against his client. This, according to learned Counsel, vitiates the order of detention. The contention taken by detenu's Counsel is consistent with the decision of a Division Bench of this Court given in Criminal Writ Petition No. 794 of 1988. The following passage from that judgment delivered on 26-10-1988 brings out the ratio with clarity :- "In the grounds of detention it has not been stated by the detaining authority that in the light of what has transpired the detenu was likely to indulge in future in similar activities. The inference on the basis of which the detaining authority passed the order of detention is a ground of detention. The grounds of detention do not merely mean the facts but the inference drawn from the facts and the documents. So considered in the present case it is seen that the detenu has not been communicated a very important inference drawn by the detaining authority, namely that the detenu on the basis of his activities, was likely to indulge in similar activities in future…… If the detaining authority drew an inference from the past conduct of the detenu in the present case, that inference has not been incorporated in paragraph 11 of the grounds of detention as it ought to have been done because the inference itself is a ground on the of which the order of detention is based." With respect the said passage applies on all four to the facts of the present case. Consequently the detention order cannot be sustained and hence the order. ORDER The impugned order of detention is quashed and set aside. Petitioner is directed to be released forthwith unless wanted in connection with some other case. Rule in the above terms is hereby made absolute. Order accordingly.