ORAL JUDGMENT H.H. Kantharia, J.- The petitioner is the wife of detune Abbasbhai Heptullabhai Vasi (hereinafter referred to as "the detune") who was detained by an order dated October 14, 1988 passed by the Joint Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, with a view to preventing him from abelling the smuggling of goods under sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974. 2. The grounds on which the detention order was based were that on July 9,1988 the officers of Intelligence Unit, Sahar Airport, Bombay intercepted two passengers by name Iqbal Yakubbhai Richdiwal and Fakruddin Mohamed Ali Lakdawala and during their search it was revealed that they were found in possession of foreign currency equivalent to Indian Rupees 4,33,800/- and Indian currency worth Rs.5,23,500/- in the baggage of Richdiwala and the customs officers, therefore, seized the said currency under a reasonable belief that the same were attempted to be smuggled out of India. These currencies were seized under a panchanma dated July 9, 1988. What was alleged against the detune was that he arrived from Dubai on 1-7-1988 and before departure to Bombay his brother by name Kaizer Vasi told him to arrange ticket of F.M. Lakadwala and he accordingly booked ticket for Lakadwala and another for Iqbal Richdiwala for their departure to Dubai on 9-7-1988. Further, he received phone call from Dubai on his residential telephone No. 339708 from one Soyab Dholakwala having an electric shop in Dubai and that Dholakwala told him that one person would meet him in Bombay and the said contract person would give him some bundle of foreign currency and that the said foreign currency was to be carried out of India. It was also alleged that the said contract person told him that the said foreign currency was to be sent to Dholakwala and he told one person by name Haider to conceal the said foreign currency in one pillow case and that he went to the business-premises of Lakadwala and handed over the said pillow (in which he had concealed the currency) to Richdiwala on his way to Anookool Hotel and that he had arranged air tickets for Iqbal Richdiwala and Fakruddin Lakdawala and that he had not promised any monetary consideration either to Iqbalbhai or Lakadawala for carrying the foreign currency to Dubai and further that he was to get monetary consideration of Rs. 5,000/- after successful delivery of foreign currency to his brother Kaizer Ali in Dubai through Iqbal Richdiwala and that his brother Kaizer Ali was to give the said foreign 'Currency to Dholakwala. 3. From the aforesaid facts and circumstances it was alleged against the detune that he had abetted the smuggling of goods and unless prevented he would continue to do so in future. It was then stated that although departmental proceedings and court proceedings were initiated against him, the detaining authority was satisfied that it was necessary to detain him under the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 with a view to preventing him from abetting the smuggling of goods. 4. The petitioner who, as stated above, is the wife of the detune challenges the detention order on the ground that the detaining authority has, inter alia, drawn a vital conclusion to the effect that although departmental proceedings and court proceedings had been initiated against the detune (despite the fact that no material to that effect was or could have been placed before the detaining authority) yet he was "satisfied" that it was necessary to detain the detune. According to the petitioner, the said conclusion was drawn on totally non-existent facts and material in that the departmental proceedings were initiated by the show cause notice issued on 9-12-1988 and the court proceedings were initiated by filing the complaint on 13-12-1990. According to the petitioner, the said conclusion was drawn on totally non-existent facts and material in that the departmental proceedings were initiated by the show cause notice issued on 9-12-1988 and the court proceedings were initiated by filing the complaint on 13-12-1990. Thus, according to the petitioner, the "satisfaction" arrived at by the detaining authority on the aforesaid crucial issue was sham and a mere pretence which displays not only the casual but rather callous exercise of the statutory power and non-application of mind and that is how the impugned order was, per se, mala fide and ab initio null and void. 5. Mr. Karmali, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, elaborated this point and brought to our notice that neither the court proceedings nor the adjudication proceedings were started when the detention order was made on 1410-1988 in as much as the show cause notice was issued only on 9th December, 1988 and the prosecution was launched only on 13-12-1990. In the submission of Mr. Karmali, therefore, it cannot be said that on 14-10-1988 either the prosecution was launched or the adjudication proceedings were started. There is substance in this submission and it deserves to be accepted. Mr. Aggrawal, learned Counsel representing the respondent Nos. 1 and 2, in fairness, also agreed that it cannot be said that when the detention order was passed the court proceedings were initiated- Mr. Aggrawal candidly admitted that the sanction of prosecution was obtained only on 30th November, 1990 and there after on 13th December, 1990 prosecution was launched under Section 135 of the Customs Act when the complaint was filed and, therefore, it cannot be said that the cognizance was taken on or before 14-10-1988. Mr. Aggrawal did make an attempt to controvert argument that on or before 1410-1988 no adjudication proceedings were started. But we feel that in view of the fact that admittedly on 14-10-1988 no cognizance of the alleged offence was taken on which point itself the petition should succeed and, therefore, the argument advanced by Mr. Aggrawal about the adjudication proceedings being started on 9-12-1988 need not be considered in arriving at the conclusion that the detention order was bad in law. 6. In this view of the matter, the petition succeeds and the same is allowed. Aggrawal about the adjudication proceedings being started on 9-12-1988 need not be considered in arriving at the conclusion that the detention order was bad in law. 6. In this view of the matter, the petition succeeds and the same is allowed. The impugned detention order dated 14-10-1988 is quashed and set aside the detune shall be set at liberty forthwith so far as this case is concerned. Rule is accordingly made absolute. -Writ Petition allowed