Judgment MILAP CHANDRA JAM, J, J. ( 1 ) THIS habeas corpus petition has been filed for quashing the order No. P. 5/3/home/9192 dated 28. 05. 1992 (Annexure-A) passed by the Home Commissioner, government of Rajasthan, Jaipur (respondent No. 2) under Section 3 (1), Conservation of Foreign exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (hereinafter called the Act) against vasant Raj Jam (brother of the petitioner) (hereinafter called the detenut) and for his release. The facts of the case giving rise to this petition may be summarised thus. ( 2 ) ON May 03, 1991, police seized 24 silver slabs weighing 851. 7 Kgms valuing Rs. 59,57,000/- from Gujrat Engineering and Oil Mills, Rani (Pali ). At that time, the Manager of the Mill Hastimal Jam and the detenu were present there. F. I. R. No. 38/91 U/ss. 411 and 12-B, I. P. C. and 110, Customs Act was registered in the P. S. Rani against the detenu and Bharat Jam. The same day, both of them were arrested and police remand was obtained upto 13. 05. 1992. On May 04, 1991, Customs Department, Jodhpur was accordingly informed. On May 07, 1991, a DCM Toyota truck bearing No. GOO 1038 was also seized by the police as the said silver slabs were brought in it. The same day, the Custom Officer, Jodhpur moved an application for handing over the said silver to him under the Customs Act, 1962. On May 08, 1991, Final Report was given in the said F. I. R. No. 38 of 1991. On May 18, 1991, Bharat Jam moved an application for the delivery of silver to him stating that it belonged to his relative Sagarmal Ram Chandra Rawat, Beejwa, the godown of the said Oil Mill was taken on rent and he kept it there. On May 21, 1991, bail was granted to detenu and Bharat Jam on the condition that they would not leave the jurisdiction of the court without prior permission. On May 28, 1992, the said detention order (Annexure-A) was passed. On September 23, 1992, the petitioner was arrested by the Gamda Devi Police Station, Bombay in F. I. R. No. 856/92 U/ss. 342, 365,387, 397 and 452 read with Section 120-B, I. P. C. On October 12, 1992, the detenu was granted bail by the Metropolitan Magistrate, 14th Court, Goregaon, Bombay. On 13. 10. On September 23, 1992, the petitioner was arrested by the Gamda Devi Police Station, Bombay in F. I. R. No. 856/92 U/ss. 342, 365,387, 397 and 452 read with Section 120-B, I. P. C. On October 12, 1992, the detenu was granted bail by the Metropolitan Magistrate, 14th Court, Goregaon, Bombay. On 13. 10. 1992, he was handed over to the Central Excise and Custom Department and the order of detention Annexure A was served on him. On October 16, 1992, grounds of detention and documents were served upon him and he was kept in Central Jail, Jodhpur. The detenu moved an application to the Superintendent, Customs, Jodhpur for giving him a copy of his statement recorded on October 15, 1992 u/s. 108, Custom Act. On November 6, 1992, the detenu submitted his representation. On the report of the Advisory Board, the State Government confirmed the detention order Annexure A by its order dated December 29, 1992 Annexure X2 till December 12, 1993. ( 3 ) IN reply, almost all the aforesaid facts have been admitted. It has further been averred in it that the detenu was summoned four times between 1st July, 1991 to 19th September, 1991 u/s. 108, Customs Act, 1962, he neither appeared before the investigating authority nor cooperated in the investigation, crucial part of the investigation could not be completed earlier and the detention order dated May 28, 1992. Annexure A was passed after due consideration, thorough examination, prolonged processing and application of mind in accordance with law. It has also been averred that whatever delay occurred in passing the detention order it occurred only due to non-cooperation of the detenu himself, the grounds of detention and documents were promptly supplied to him,; his statement u/s 108, Customs Act was recorded in presence of his counsel Shri V. D. Kalla Advocate on October 15, 1992 and his representation was promptly dealt with. ( 4 ) IT has been contended by the learned counsel for the detenu that the grounds of detention and documents were admittedly supplied to the detenu on October 16, 1992 and he surrendered and submitted to the detention order Annexure A on September 24,1992 when the police of the Gamdevi, Bombay was informed about it (page 140 of the written arguments ). He also contended that it is further clear from the affidavit of, Shri Kale, papers No. 108-110, that the petitioner was deemed to have been detained in pursuance of the said detention order Annexure A with effect from October 7, 1992 (pages 144-145), admittedly grounds of detention and copies of documents were supplied to him on October 16, 1992, more than five days and as such his further detention was and is against the provisions of Article 22 (5) of the Constitution of India and Section 3 (3) of the Act. He relied upon Roshan Beevi and Others v. It. Secy. to Government of Tamil Nadu and Others, M. N. Ugrappa v. Government of My sore and Others, R. V. Palferey v. Sadler, Spicer Ho14, Haradhan Saha v. State of West Bengal and Others, Abdul labar Butt v. State of J and K, Ibrahim Ahmad Batti v. State of Gujrat and Others7. ( 5 ) IN reply, it has-been contended by the learned Addi. Advocate General that no such plea has been raised in the lengthy Habeas Corpus petition and in fact the detenu neither submitted nor surrendered to the said detention order prior to October 13, 1992, the day on which it was executed. He further contended that Section 4 of the Act read with sections 46 and 70 to 79, Cr. P. C. , 1973 do not contemplate submission or surrender. ( 6 ) ADMITTEDLY, there is not a slightest indication in the petition that the detenu submitted to the detention order on 24. 09. 1992 or any other date or surrendered to it on October 07, 1992 or any other date. Article 22 (5) of the Constitution of Ind runs as under: 22 (5 ).- When any person is detained in pursuance of an order made under any law providing for preventive detention the authority making the order shall, as soon as may be, communicate to such person the grounds which the order has been made and shall afford him the earliest opportunity of making a representation against the order. ( 7 ) SECTION 3 (3) of the Act states: 3 (3 ).- For the purposes of clause (5) of article 22 of the Constitution, the communication to a person detained in pursuance of a detention order of the grounds on which the order has been made shall be made as soon as may be after the detention, but ordinary not later than five days, and in exceptional circumstance and for reasons to be recorded in writing. Not later than fifteen days, from the date of detention. T ( 8 ) THE above-quoted provisions require the communication within five days to the detenu detained in pursuance of a detention order of the ground on which order has been made. The period of five days commences from the date of detention in pursuance of the detention order. In Article 22 (5), the words in pursuance of an order and in Section 3 (3) of the Act the words, in pursuance of the detention order appear. They arc very significant. Butterworths Words and Phrases, 1989 Edition, defines at page 403 In pursuance of as under: the phrase in pursuanch of is much more restrictive than the phrase by reason of. The one imports a notion of obligation - of duty to do a thing; the other suggests merely the power to authority to do it. The one is mandatory; the other is permissive. (1945)2 W. W. R. 371 at 374, per Dysart, J. power to authority to do it. The one is mandatory; the other is permissive. (1945)2 W. W. R. 371 at 374, per Dysart according the Websters Third International Dictionary, pursuance means the act of pursuing as by chasing, seeking after, continuing, following up. It is not in dispute that the detenu was arrested on 23. 09. 1992 (Paper No. 121) in F. I. R. No. 856/92 under Sections 342, 365, 387, 397 and 452 read with Section 120-B, I. P. C. of Police Station Gamda Devi, Bombay, his bail application in this criminal case was allowed on October 08, 1992 by the Metropolitan Magistrate, 14th Court, Bombay (pages 126-128), application (paper No. 129) was move on his behalf for furnishing cash security instead of surety-bond and it was allowed by the said Magistrate on October 12, 1992. The learned Magistrate also passed order the same day for handing over the accused (detenu) to the custody of Inspector of Custom and Excise, Jodhpur, after he executes his personal bond and deposits Rs. 7,000/- as cash security. It is not the case of the detenu that he furnished bail bonds in pursuance of the bail order dated 08. 10. 1992 prior to 13. 10. 1992. Ground No. 6 of the Habeas Corpus petition (page 11) starts with the sentence The petitioner says and submits that the detenu was served with the impugned order of the detention soon after the detenu was released on bail in CR No. 856/92 of Gamdevi, Bombay on 13. 10. 1992 as directed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 14th Court, Girgaun on 15. 10. 1982. It is thus clear that the detenu remained in the judicial custody in connection with the said criminal case of Police Station, Gamdevi, Bombay till October 13, 1992 and, thereafter, his detention in pursuance of the detention order Annexure-A commenced and not prior to it. Detention means keeping in confinement. According to Butterworths Words and Phrases Detention is distinct from arrest. It is in effect keeping a suspect in custody without making any charge against him. ( 9 ) THE contention of the learned counsel for the detenu that the detenu submitted to the detention order on 24. 09. 1992 (page 140) and he would deemed to have been detained in pursuance of the detention order w. e. f. 08. 10. 1992 are contradictory to each other. Mote-over, there was no question of the submission to the detention order on 24. 09. 1992 when it was not even received at Bombay. The petitioner has stated in para No. 20fhis affidavit (page 88) As such the order of detention was duly served on 28. 09. 1992. He has further stated in it (page 89) in any case he was deemed to have been arrested on 05. 10. 1992. He lastly states (page 90) The detenu is deemed to have been arrested either on 30. 09. 1992 or even on 05. 10. 1992 or at the most on 07. 10. 1992 when the affidavit has been filed. He has further stated in it (page 89) in any case he was deemed to have been arrested on 05. 10. 1992. He lastly states (page 90) The detenu is deemed to have been arrested either on 30. 09. 1992 or even on 05. 10. 1992 or at the most on 07. 10. 1992 when the affidavit has been filed. Shri Shailesh Balwant Rao Kala, Inspector of Police, Gamdevi Police Station, Bombay has filed photo-stat copies of the two letters Annexure R/l and R/2 (pages 121 and 122) written by the Additional Director General, Revenue Intelligence, Bombay to the Additional Commissioner of Police, Bombay regarding the passing of detention order against the detenu. Along with the letter dated October 06, 1992 (papers No. 123 and 124), a photostat copy of the detention order was sent for information. It is stated in the para 2 of affidavit of Shri Shailesh Balwant Rao Kale (paper No. 109) that Custom Inspector, Jodhpur Sewani attended the Gamdevi Police Station, Bombay on 05. 10. 1992. It is not stated in it that he came with the said detention order. When it is not proved that the detention order Annex-A was received at Bombay prior to October 08, 1992, there could not have been any question of detenu submitting or surrendering to it prior to this date. ( 10 ) THERE is yet another aspect of the matter. According to Section 4 of the Act, a detention order is executed in the manner provided for execution of warrant of arrest under the Code of Criminal Procedure. Admittedly the detention order Annexure-A was issued by the Home Commissioner, Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur and it was to be executed at Bombay as the detenu was there. Thus the provisions of Sections 79, Cr. P. C. were attracted. Shri Sewani Custom Inspector, Jodhpur approached the Metropolitan Magistrate, 14th Court, Bombay under Section 79 (1), Cr. P. C. As the detenu was in the judicial custody of the said Magistrate, he passed order (page 105) on 12. 10. 1992 for handing over the detenu to the custody of the Inspector, Customs and Excise, Jodhpur after the detenu furnished personal bond and cash security as ordered by him. Thus the question of execution of the detention order Annexure A arose for the first time on 12. 10. 1992 after the Metropolitan Magistrate, 14th Court, Bombay passed the said order. 1992 for handing over the detenu to the custody of the Inspector, Customs and Excise, Jodhpur after the detenu furnished personal bond and cash security as ordered by him. Thus the question of execution of the detention order Annexure A arose for the first time on 12. 10. 1992 after the Metropolitan Magistrate, 14th Court, Bombay passed the said order. It has been observed in Rameshwar District Magistrate8, (Constitution Bench) at page 314 para 14 that detention order should be served upon a detenu after he is released. There was no question of the detenu surrendering or submitting it prior to this date. Shri Kale has simply stated in his affidavit (paper No. 108-116) that during investigation it came to the surface that the detenu was wanted in COFEPOSA detention order dated 28. 5. 1992. Submission or surrender of the detenu to such an information, assuming to be so for the sake of arguments for a moment, would not amount to his detention in pursuance of the detention order within the meaning of Article 22 (5) of the Constitution and Section 3 (3) of the Act. Thus there is no force in the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the detention of the detenu was and is against the provisions of Article 22 (5) of the Constitution and Section 3 (3) of the Act. ( 11 ) IT was next contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the detention order Annexure A was passed after more than a year from the seizure of the 24 silver slabs, this itself goes to show that for a long period the authority itself was not satisfied that the said silver was connected with smuggling activities and as such the detention order lost its connection with the said recovery of silver. He relied on Harnek Singh State of Punjab. There is no great force in this contention also. It is, however, not in dispute that the said silver was seized on May 3,1991 and the detention order Annexure A was passed on May 28, 1992. Admittedly, the detenu was summoned four times between July 1, 1991 and September 19, 1991 vide par 14 (i) of the reply (page 48) and correspondinh pa. a 4 (a) of the rejoinder affidavit (page 60 ). Admittedly, the detenu was summoned four times between July 1, 1991 and September 19, 1991 vide par 14 (i) of the reply (page 48) and correspondinh pa. a 4 (a) of the rejoinder affidavit (page 60 ). The detenu did not appear in compliance with an: mlfimon on the ground that he was bound down by tile Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Desuri not to leave his territorial jurisdiction while he was granted bail on May 21,1991. Admittedly, the detenu was arrested in said F. I. R. No. 856/92 of Police Station, Gamdevi, Bombay on September 23, 1992. In the rejoinder affidavit this fact has not been denied. It has not been said in it that detenu left Rani (pali) for Bombay after obtaining permission from the Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Desuri. When he could leave Rani for Bombay for his own purpose, he could well appear before the Custom Authority, Jodhpur in compliance with their summons and in that case the Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Desuri would not have taken any action for disobeying his said order dated May 31, 1991 not to leave Rani. This strongly supports the contention of the respondents that the detenu did not cooperate with them in the investigation of the case and it resulted in delay in passing the detention order Annexure A. A perusal of grounds of detention Annexure B (papers No. 27 to 39) goes to show that the detenu is a member of International Smuggling Gang, he had close association with Daud Ibrahim Gang and he left India for this purpose several times. Several smuggling events have been enumerated in the grounds of detention running in ten typed pages in which the detenu actively participated, ranging over four years. Hindi Matter ( 12 ) SUBSEQUENT conduct of the detenu has also been highly reprehensible. The said F. I. R. No. 856192 u/s. 342, 365, 387,397,452 read with Section 120-B, I. P. C. was registered in September, 1992 at Police Station, Gamdevi, Bombay against the detenu and several others. He was a prime accused in it. Hindi Matter ( 12 ) SUBSEQUENT conduct of the detenu has also been highly reprehensible. The said F. I. R. No. 856192 u/s. 342, 365, 387,397,452 read with Section 120-B, I. P. C. was registered in September, 1992 at Police Station, Gamdevi, Bombay against the detenu and several others. He was a prime accused in it. On enquiry it was found that he was having rivalry with the members of the family of the complainant as he was under impression that due to the interference of the father of the victim he had incurred losses to the tune of Rupees One Crore Twenty Lacs and in order to make good his alleged losses he had conspired and hatched a plan to abduct the victim with the help of the co accused and hire-lings vide report of the Inspector of Police, Gamdevi Police Station, Bombay (pages 125-126 ). ( 13 ) THE investigation on various smuggling activities in which the detenu participated, mentioned in the grounds of detention, must have taken sufficient time of the investigating agency. These grounds reveal that the detention order was passed after thorough investigation, detailed scrutiny, due consideration, prolonged processing and full application of mind. There no is period prescribed either under the Constitution or under the Act within which the detention order should be passed. Article 22 (5) provides that the detaining authority shall, as soon as may be, communicate to the detenu the grounds and shall afford him earliest opportunity of making representation against the detention order. The Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in K. M. Abdulla Kuhia and V. L. Abdul Kadir v. Union of India and State of Karnataka, interpreted the words as soon as may bet and held that the representation should be expeditiously considered and disposed of with sense of urgency without avoidable delay. It further observed that there can be no hard and fast rule in this regard, it depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case and the requirements, however, is that there should not be supine indifference, slackness or calous attitude in considering the representation. It further observed that there can be no hard and fast rule in this regard, it depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case and the requirements, however, is that there should not be supine indifference, slackness or calous attitude in considering the representation. Under the facts and circumstances of the case, it cannot be said that there has been supine indifference, slackness or calous attitude in passing the detention order Annexure A. ( 14 ) IN Ashok Narain v. Union of Indiaf, there was a delay of over 8 months and it was observed in the end as follows: We are satisfied that the matter was examined thoroughly at various levels and the detaining authority applied his mind fully and satisfactorily to the question whether the petitioner should be detained under the COFEPOSA Act. The passage of time from the date of initial apprehension of the detenu and the making of the order of detention was not occasioned by any laxity on the part of the agencies concerned, but was the result of a full and detailed consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case by the various departments involved. We find from the file that the very question whether the passage of time had made it unnecessary to order the detention of the detenu was also considered by the detaining authority. We are unable to hold in the circumstances of this case that there was any tardiness on the part of anyone or that the detention is in any manner illegal. The petition in rejected. Reliance was placed on Anand Prakash v. State of UP. . In this case, the detenu had no past criminal record, he was already in jail and there was no material except bald statement that he would repeat his activities after ceming out of the jail. In Harnek Singh v. State of Punjab (supra) the detenu was regularly appearing in the case. In the instant case, before the detention order Annexure A was passed, the detenu was repeatedly summoned to appear before the custom authorities but he did not appear in compliance of any summon. In Harnek Singh v. State of Punjab (supra) the detenu was regularly appearing in the case. In the instant case, before the detention order Annexure A was passed, the detenu was repeatedly summoned to appear before the custom authorities but he did not appear in compliance of any summon. ( 15 ) IT was next contended by the learned counsel for the detenu that there has been inordinate delay in execution of the detention order Annexure A. It is not in dispute that the detention order was passed on May 28, 1992 and it was executed on October 13, 1992, after 41h months. As already observed above, the Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Desuri directed the detenu not to leave his jurisdiction without his permission while granting bail in F. I. R. No. 38/9 1, Police Station, Rani. Despite it, he left Rani and he was found in Bombay and was arrested there in the said F. I. R. No. 856192 on September 23, 1992. The next day (24. 9. 1992), the Additional Director General, Revenue Intelligence, Bombay wrote letter (papers No. 121-122) to the Additional Commissioner of Police (Crime), Bombay intimating that the detention order has been passed against the accused Vasant Raj Jam (detenu), it is pending execution and request was made that after necessary action at his send the detenu may be handed over to the Pali Police/jodhpur Custom. In his second letter dated October 6, 1992 (papers No. 123-124), the Additional Director General has intimated that Shri G. K. Swami Inspector, Central Excise and Custom has reported to his office on October 5, 1992 with the records relating to the detenu and a request was made therein that said facts be mentioned in the remand application. Under the facts and circumstances of the case, it cannot be said that the authorities dealing with the execution of the detention order Annexure A had adopted an attitude of lei sureness, supine indifference, slackness, unduly protracted procrastination or calous attitude in executing it. The detention order cannot, therefore be quashed on this ground. ( 16 ) THERE is no force in the ground No. 6 taken in the habeas corpus petition that the detenu was kept at different places from 13th to 16th October, 1992 despite specific direction in the detention order that he would be kept in Central Jail, Jodhpur. The detention order cannot, therefore be quashed on this ground. ( 16 ) THERE is no force in the ground No. 6 taken in the habeas corpus petition that the detenu was kept at different places from 13th to 16th October, 1992 despite specific direction in the detention order that he would be kept in Central Jail, Jodhpur. Admittedly, the detention order Annexure A was executed at Bombay. The detenue expressed his desire that he should be taken to Jodhpur through air and not by train, accordingly he was taken to the Airport, Bombay on October 13, 1992, flight was missed, he was brought back to Gamdevi Police Station, Bombay for safe custody, on October 14, 1992 next regular flight was taken, plane reached at Jodhpur at 8. 30 P. M. , the authorties of Central Jail, Jodhpur refused to admit him in jail in view of the provisions of Rajasthan jail Manual not to admit any prisoner after sunset for this reason he was kept in the Jodhpur Police Station, Jodhpur and on October 15, 1992 he was lodged in the central Jail, Jodhpur. Under these facts and circumstances, it cannot be said that the authorities executing the detentions order Annexure A committed breach of the provision of Section 5 of the Act. ( 17 ) IN ground No. VIII of the Habeas Corpus petition it has been stated that the detention authorities have no where in the grounds of detention recorded their conclusion that the detenu was likely to indulge in future to the said prejudicial activities and he would continue to do so unless he was prevented from doing so by clamping down preventive detention on him. This is not correct. Such averments have been made in para No. 11 of the grounds of detention, quoted above. ( 18 ) IT has also been averred in the habeas corpus petition that the detention order was malafide. No particulars of the malafide have been mentioned. Under the facts and circumstances of the case, it cannot be said that the detaining authority was actuated with mala fides. ( 19 ) NO further material was considered after the detention order Annexure A was passed and as such there was no question of supplying it along with the grounds of detention. ( 20 ) THERE is also no substance in the ground No. V of the habeas corpus petition. ( 19 ) NO further material was considered after the detention order Annexure A was passed and as such there was no question of supplying it along with the grounds of detention. ( 20 ) THERE is also no substance in the ground No. V of the habeas corpus petition. No clause of subsection (i) of Section 3 of the Act is mentioned in the detention order Annexure A. There is no inconsistency in this respect in the detention order and the grounds of detention. As such there is no force in the habeas corpus petition. ( 21 ) CONSEQUENTLY, the Habeas Corpus Petition is dismissed. Petition dismissed