Judgment :- PAREED PILLAY, C.J. The petitioner has filed the habeas corpus petition for the release of her husband Shamshudeen (detenu) and to set him at liberty. 2. On 12-5-1989 a person by name Shanavas landed at Trivandrum Air Port from Abu Dhabi. He had with him three bags which included a card board box. He did not have the baggage tag ticket for the said box. On the information given by him that the box belonged to his relative H. K. Shamshudeen (detenu) the card board box was opened in his presence and it was found that it continued 10 gold biscuits concealed at the bottom of the box. Statement was recorded from Shanavas to the effect that he carried the card board box at the instance of the detenue who is his brother-in-law's brother. Detenu stated that the gold under seizure was purchased by him and he concealed it and gave the same to his relative. On 13-5-1989 the detenu was arrested. Later he was released on bail. Though on 22-5-1989 the residence of Shanavas and detenu were searched, it did not yield any result. On 8-8-1989 detention order was passed with a view to prevent the detenu from smuggling goods and abetting smuggling of goods. The detention order was executed only on 19-11-1994. It was on that day that the detenu was arrested. On 20-11-1994 grounds of detention were served on him. He sent a representation on 3-12-1994. That was disposed of on 14-12-1994. Another representation was sent by him on 2-1-1995 and that was disposed of on 13-1-1995. On 19-12-1994 the Advisory Board reviewed the matter and the order of confirmation was passed by the State Government on 1-2-1995. The representation of the detenu was rejected by the Central Government. 3. First point urged before us is that there has been inordinate delay of 5 years and 3 months in implementing the order of detention and this clearly shows that the satisfaction that immediate detention of the detenu is required cannot be genuine. Secondly it is contended that vital documents which would have affected the satisfaction of the Board were not placed or considered by the detaining authority. The documents mentioned are the bail application filed on behalf of the detenu which contained the retraction of his statement. Secondly it is contended that vital documents which would have affected the satisfaction of the Board were not placed or considered by the detaining authority. The documents mentioned are the bail application filed on behalf of the detenu which contained the retraction of his statement. Petitioner's contention is that non-placing of the bail application and the orders thereon which are documents of vital nature has vitiated the order of detention. 4. In answer to the contention that the bail application which contained the retracted statement of the detenu and the order of the court granting bail were not placed or considered by the detaining authority Government Pleader pointed out that in fact they were placed before the authority. It is contended that they are not documents relied on in issuing the detention order and only documents relied on for issuing the detention order alone need be supplied to the detenue along with the grounds of detention. It is further contended that the bail application and the petition for the release of the passport originated from the detenu and so he is supposed to know of its contents and hence it cannot be said that any prejudice has been caused to the detenu in the matter of non-furnishing the aforesaid documents along with the grounds of detention. 5. In para 4 of the Original Petition it is stated that the detenu had sent a detailed letter on 15-6-1989 narrating how he was arrested at his house and not in the Air Port and how he was tortured to make an involuntary statement. In the Original Petition it is further stated that these documents are very relevant and important and non-placing of all or any one of the documents had vitiated the satisfaction of the authority and hence vitiated the order of detention. In paragraph 10 of the counter-affidavit filed by the first respondent it is stated that petition dated 15-6-1989 submitted before the Collector of Customs, Ernakulam was also placed before the sponsoring authority as per letter dated 20-7-1989 and that the same was placed before issuing the detention order and hence copies of the same were not furnished to the detenu along with the grounds of detention. 6. In view of the first point raised by the petitioner viz. 6. In view of the first point raised by the petitioner viz. inordinate delay in making the arrest despite the detention order, we do not think it is necessary to advert to the second point. With regard to the considerable delay in executing the order of detention petitioner's counsel submitted that in view of the fact that there is no proper explanation of the delay in the execution preventive detention of the detenu cannot be sustained. Relying on Bhawarlal v. State of Tamil Nadu, AIR 1979 SC 541 : (1979 Cri LJ 462) counsel pointed out that the inordinate delay of more than 5 years is sufficient for the Court to assume that there is no "live and proximate link" between the grounds of detention stated by the detaining authority and the very purpose of detention. It is contended that as the purpose of detention is the prevention of smuggling activities, "live and proximate link" must always be there in justification of the preventive detention and if it is not there justification for detention cannot be there. 7. Government Pleader contended that all along the detenu was absconding and despite best efforts he could not be traced and hence the delaying tactics adopted by him cannot be used to his advantage. In the petition it is stated that the detenu married the petitioner on 19-7-1992 at the Muslim Association Hall, Nandavanan, Trivandrum and hundreds of people attended the marriage function. If this allegation is true, it is futile to contend that the detenu was absconding. As against this averment what has been stated in the counter-affidavit is that the police had no information regarding the marriage. In para 3 of the counter-affidavit of the first respondent it is averred that police conducted discreet enquiries regarding the detenu's whereabouts and it was revealed that he had left India and that for the last 5 years he had been staying in Gulf and did not return to his native place till the execution of the detention order. In view of the assertion of the detenu's marriage with the petitioner at Trivandrum which is not denied specifically, much weight cannot be attached to the averment that the detenu had gone abroad. As rightly pointed out by the petitioner's counsel, had the police been vigilant in the matter they could have easily known about the marriage and arrested him then and there. As rightly pointed out by the petitioner's counsel, had the police been vigilant in the matter they could have easily known about the marriage and arrested him then and there. That apart, there is no material to hold that the detenu had gone abroad during the period in question. 8. Though action under Section 7 of the COFEPOSA Act is not mandatory, the failure to take action under the section gives scope for doubt regarding the assertion that detenu had absconded or concealed himself to avoid the arrest. When the statute prescribes for such action against a recalcitrant person the failure to have recourse to the same cannot be overlooked as a mere omission especially in a case where there is inordinate delay between the order of detention and its execution. Section 7(1)(a) of the Act postulates that the provisions of Sections 82, 83, 84 and 85 of the Cr.P.C. shall apply in respect of the person of the detenu and his property as if the order directing that he be detained was a warrant issued by the Magistrate. Section 82 of the Cr.P.C. provides for the procedure for proclamation regarding an absconding person. It states that if any Court has reason to believe (whether after taking evidence or not) that any person against whom a warrant has been issued by it has absconded or is concealing himself so that such warrant cannot be executed, the Court may publish a written proclamation requiring him to appear at a specified place and at a specified time not less than thirty days from the date of publishing such proclamation. Section 82(2) provides for the method of publication of the proclamation. It has to be publicly read in some conspicuous place of the town or village in which such person ordinarily resides. It has to be affixed to some conspicuous part of the house or homestead in which such person ordinarily resides or to some conspicuous place of such town or village. A copy has to be affixed to some conspicuous part of the Court house. Court may direct a copy of the proclamation to be published in a daily newspaper circulating in the place in which the person ordinarily resides. 9. A copy has to be affixed to some conspicuous part of the Court house. Court may direct a copy of the proclamation to be published in a daily newspaper circulating in the place in which the person ordinarily resides. 9. In the counter-affidavit what is stated is that the letter dated 9-3-1995 of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Trivandrum revealed that after receipt of the report dated 5-2-1990 proceedings under Sections 82 and 83 were initiated on 8-2-1990 by issuing a non-bailable warrant to the detenu through the Superintendent of Police, Trivandrum (Rural) for execution prescribing the time limit up to 31-3-1990. The counter-affidvit does not show that procedure contemplated under Section 8 of the Cr.P.C. has been followed in the case. 10. The fact that the detenu had married the petitioner on 19-7-1992 at the Muslim Association Hall, Nandavanam, Trivandrum is really indicative of the fact that this is not a case where the detenu was absconding during the period in question. As there is no material to hold that more than five years the detenu was absconding or making himself scares and as also there is no acceptable material to hold that he had gone abroad, the only conclusion possible is that there is no cogent explanation as to the delay in executing the order of detention. In view of the wide gap of 5 years and 3 months between the order of detention and the arrest, it is not possible to hold that there exists genuine apprehension that the detenu is likely to continue in the smuggling activities. We are not satisfied that this is a case where further detention of the detenu is necessary. Exts.P-1 and P-3 are quashed. Petitioner's husband (detenu) is ordered to be released from custody unless required to be detained for any other cause. 11. Original Petition stands allowed. Petition allowed.