In both the petitions, questions of fact and law are similar and both the petitions can be decided by a common order to which the learned coun sel for the parties have no objection. 2. Petitioners of both the petitions have challenged their detention under the orders dated 12th August, 1997 passed by the respondent No. 2, District Magistrate, Bulandshahr under Section 3 (2) of the National Security Act, 1980 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ). 3. It appears that both the petitioners, Shakir and Shabbu, were ar rested on 4th August, 1997 under Section 3 of the U. P. (Prevention of) Cow Slaughter Act, 1955. The case was registered as case crime No. 99 of 1997. Both the petitioners were traveling by truck No. HR 46/1016 in which cow flesh was being transported. The truck was in tercepted by the police near village Nibari Bagar. Both the petitioners were employed as cleaner on the said truck. Order of detention was passed on 12th August, 1997 and was served on petitioners the same day in jail. The petitioners were, however, granted bail in the aforesaid criminal case and released from jail on 21-8-1997. They remained out of jail upto 3rd March, 1998, on which date they surrendered. It is case of the respon dents, as stated in the counter-affidavit filed by Sri R. S. Agrawal, Joint Secretary to Government of U. P. in Home and Con fidential Department, Lucknow, that the petitioners were wrongly released on 21-8-1997 by mistake and negligence of the Deputy Jailer, district Jail Bulandshahr, for which a Magisterial enquiry was set up by the District Magistrate, Bulandshahr. As soon as this fact came to the knowledge of the State Government, the State Government also ordered the District Magistrate, Bulandshahr to take neces sary action to re-detain the petitioners at once. The petitioners on knowing that they were wrongly released surrendered on 3-3- 1998 which was communicated to the State Government on 9-3-1998. The order of detention was approved by the State Government under Section 3 (4) of the Act on 23-8-1997. The Advisory Board gave its opinion on 27-9-1997. The order was confirmed on 13-10-1997 for a period of 12 months with effect from 12-8-1997. 4. Heard Sri D. R. Chaudhary, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri A. K. Tripathi, learned Additional Govern ment Advocate appearing for the respon dents Nos. The Advisory Board gave its opinion on 27-9-1997. The order was confirmed on 13-10-1997 for a period of 12 months with effect from 12-8-1997. 4. Heard Sri D. R. Chaudhary, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri A. K. Tripathi, learned Additional Govern ment Advocate appearing for the respon dents Nos. 1, 2 and 3 and Sri K. N. Pandey for the respondent No. 4, Union of India. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioners were lay man and they were totally unaware of the legal position that they could not be released, as the period of 12 months had not expired. It has also been submitted that there is no allegation against the petitioners that they, in anyway, colluded with the jail authorities for securing their release. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that actual offence was committed on 4-8-1997, more than one and half years have passed and the purpose of detention has already been served out. It is also submitted that only 11 days have been left to be served out, if the entire period of 12 months is calculated. In this connection it has been said that before passing of the impugned order of deten tion, the petitioners were already in jail for a period of 8 days and in this manner the difference remains only of 3 days, in the interest of justice they may be released. It has also been submitted that the petitioners are poor persons and their families have suffered a lot on account of their detention. 6. Learned Additional Government Advocate, on the other hand, submitted that the period of detention of 12 months cannot be curtailed, and the petitioners are liable to remain under detention for the entire period. 7. We have thoroughly considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties. It is true, that normally detenue has to remain under detention for the entire period for which the order of detention has been confirmed by the ap propriate Government under Section 12 of the Act. However, Section 13 of the Act which provides for maximum period of detention, also preserves the power of the appropriate Government to revoke or modify the detention order at any earlier time. However, Section 13 of the Act which provides for maximum period of detention, also preserves the power of the appropriate Government to revoke or modify the detention order at any earlier time. Section 13 of the act is being reproduced below: "13 Maximum period of detention.-The maximum period for which any person may be detained in pursuance of any detention order which has been confirmed under Section 12 shall be twelve months from the date of deten tion: Provided that nothing contained in this section shall affect the power of the appropriate Government to revoke or modify the detention order at any earlier time. " 8. Thus, it cannot be said that the period of detention, for which order of the detaining authority has been confirmed, cannot be curtailed in any circumstance. In suitable case for cogent reasons ap propriate Government may curtail this period by revoking or modifying the detention order. For this purpose detenue may be relegated to the appropriate Government for making request to revoke the order, but in the present case remaining period of detention left is very short, hence we are of the opinion that the ends of justice require that this court may pass appropriate order. 9. It is particular case in which petitioners were released from jail on ac count of mistake of the jail authorities, otherwise they would have served the period of detention long back. On know ing that they are to remain under deten tion for some more period, they immedi ately surrendered before the authorities. There is nothing in the counter-affidavit to indicate that the petitioners avoided arrest or in any way were responsible for wrong release during the period of deten tion. The petitioners have already remained in mil for a total period of 12 months which is short of only few days. The petitioners were arrested on 8-4-1997, more than 18 months have already passed and the apprehension of distur- feance of public order from petitioners, which was left by the detaining authority then, may not be existing now. It is also not the case of respondents that during the period 21-8-1997 to 3-3-1998, petitioners were involved in any activity prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. In these facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice the petitioners may be released. 10. It is also not the case of respondents that during the period 21-8-1997 to 3-3-1998, petitioners were involved in any activity prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. In these facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice the petitioners may be released. 10. The writ petitions are accordingly disposed of finally with the direction to the respondents to release the petitioners forthwith if their detention is not required in any other case. Petition disposed of. .