JUDGMENT : 1. We have heard counsel for the parties. 2. Special leave granted. The matter pertains to a detention order 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'). In the ultimate view we are taking 20 it may not be necessary to state facts of the case in great detail. Suffice is to say that on 17.12.91 the Enforcement Authorities seized some Indian Currency to a tune of Rs. 54/- lakhs and some documents from the residential and business premises of the detenu. He was arrested on 17.12.91 namely on the same day by the Enforcement Authorities. He was produced before the Court on 19.12.91 but he was released on bail on 16.1.92. 25 While so detention order was passed on 18.8.92 but was served on 24.8.93. The detenu made a representation and according to the learned counsel for the appellant it was forwarded to the Central Government without being considered by the detaining authorities and the Central Government rejected the representation only on 7.10.93. From the above facts it can be seen though the detention order was passed on 18.8.92 30 but it was served only 24.8.93 on which date he was taken into custody and sinned then he is in Jail custody. 3. One of the points raised by the petitioner before the High court is that there has a considerable unexplained delay in execution of the order. The High Court accepting the contention of the respondents, namely, that the detention order could not be served since 35 the appellant was absconding. 4. When there is a considerable delay, particularly the delay of one year, naturally the Court has to see whether the delay has been properly explained to judge whether the detaining authorities have the necessary satisfaction before serving the detention order and the ground of detention after such long unexplained delay. From this point of view we shall examine 40 the replay given by the detaining authorities for such inordinate delay in serving the detention order on the grounds of detention. 5. From this point of view we shall examine 40 the replay given by the detaining authorities for such inordinate delay in serving the detention order on the grounds of detention. 5. The delay sought to be explained by the authorities stating that a criminal case is also pending and the appellant who is the accused in the case appeared before the Court on 23.3.92 and also on 7.10.92 yet the detention order could not be served as the authorities were busy in translating voluminous documents which were in Gujarati to English. Then it is stated to the counter affidavit that they made some efforts to serve the order but they could not find the detenu and, therefore, they moved for cancellation of bail and the detenu did not appear on the dates on which the application was posted and, therefore, detenu 5 was absconding. This explanation is with reference to the period upto 11.12.92. Thereafter it is stated that a team of officers of sponsoring authority made an enquiry on 6.4.93 and then the detenu was not available and that finally the detenu surrendered after the expiry of one year. This explanation, in our view, appears to be very vague. We do not meant to say that the authorities should explain every day but when there is a delay of one year in Court would like to satisfy itself whether there were any efforts to trace the detenu for the purpose of serving the detention order. At such a belated stage the only explanation given is that they moved an application for cancellation of bail and since he did not attend the Court those dates therefore, it must be presumed that he was absconding. As a question of fact we find it difficult to accept this explanation to be plausible. In the result, the 75 detention order is quashed. However, we observe that this has no bearing in the criminal proceedings and other proceedings pending against the appellant. 6. The appeal is disposed of accordingly.