Judgment :- S.R.Singharavelu, J Agitating the detention orders dated 5.6.2003 passed by the Commissioner of Police, Greater Chennai, in exercise of the powers conferred on him under Section 3(2) of the National Security Act (Central Act 65 of 1980) directing one Zahir Hussain (HCP.NO.1322 of 2003), Nijamudeen (HCP.NO.1338 of 2003) and Mohammed Abdul Khader (HCP.NO.1386 of 2003) to be detained and kept under custody at the Central Prison, Cuddalore, the relatives of the concerned detenus have preferred these habeas corpus petitions. 2. Zahir Hussain was arrested on 29.11.2002 and the other two detenus were arrested on 3.12.2002. In the grounds of detention, it was so mentioned that on 29.11.2002, Thiru V.K.Mahendran, Sub.Inspector of Police (Law and Order) P6, Kodungaiyur Police Station, Chennai City along with his party consisting of the Head Constable and others conducted vehicular check near Rajarathinam Nagar Bridge, Kodungaiyur, Chennai around 11 hours and that they noticed Zahir Hussain (a) Abu Yahiyaa and one Towfiq each carrying a plastic bag in their hands and proceeding towards the northern direction of the bridge. After surrounding them and search made upon them by the police party, the plastic bag, which was carried by the detenu Zahir Hussain was found to contain five gelatine sticks (explosives), his identity card with photo issued at Saudi Arabia bearing No.C-7320276-2 and four visiting cards of different persons. Similarly, the plastic bag carried by Towfiq was found to contain 40 detonators (explosives) and other diaries. The seizure of the above said said articles was made under the cover of mahazar with attestation by two respectable persons of the locality. 3. They were brought to Kodungaiyur Police Station where the Sub.Inspector of Police lodged a special report setting out the aforesaid details. The seized properties were also produced before him. A case in Crime No.681 of 2002 under Section 5 of the Indian Explosive Substances Act and Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code was registered and the investigation was also taken up. Thereafter, in the course of investigation, the statements under Section 161 of the Criminal Procedure Code were recorded from various witnesses. The observation mahazar and rough sketch of the scene of occurrence were also prepared and the properties seized were sent under Form 95 to the Judicial Magistrate's Court on the same day. 4. Thereafter, in the course of investigation, the statements under Section 161 of the Criminal Procedure Code were recorded from various witnesses. The observation mahazar and rough sketch of the scene of occurrence were also prepared and the properties seized were sent under Form 95 to the Judicial Magistrate's Court on the same day. 4. Upon requisition before the learned Magistrate, the Inspector of Police obtained police custody of both the above mentioned persons for a period of seven days and their confessional statements were also said to have been recorded. The recovery of articles in pursuance of the said confessions was said to have been made. 5. In the extract of the confessional statement of Zahir Hussain, the following was found to have been made : 6. In the confessional statement of Nijamudeen and Mohammed Abdul Khader, the following portions were found : 7. The search conducted in the house of Zahir Hussain, following the confession, yielded recovery of hand written slips, which manifestly were containing such terms in conformity with the confessions culled out as above. The search conducted in the house of Towfiq also yielded recovery of such hand written bills indicating their idea to destroy the Hindu temples at Chennai, Madurai, Chidambaram, Kancheepuram, etc. The above recovery makes such portions of confessions admissible. 8. Therefore, it was felt that further investigation was required by a special agency and accordingly, the special investigation team was formed and further investigation was entrusted thereto. Subsequently, one Thavubeek was said to have given confession on 19.3.2003, which contained the following portions : 9. It is again on 3.5.2003, Amidh Pakiri was said to have confessed as to where from materials have been collected. It is only thereupon a joint reading of all the confessions of not only the detenus, but also Thavubeek and Amidh Pakiri were found to have infused the material links required to establish a concrete case of conspiracy both in the minds of the detenus and also their colleagues. 10. The conspiracy that had been made known was to debase the entire important Hindu temples of various places like Madurai, Tanjore, Trichy, Kanchipuram and Chennai and also aim at the lives of the individuals of important political party leaders and religious heads of Hindu community. 10. The conspiracy that had been made known was to debase the entire important Hindu temples of various places like Madurai, Tanjore, Trichy, Kanchipuram and Chennai and also aim at the lives of the individuals of important political party leaders and religious heads of Hindu community. It is thereafter a necessity had been felt that unless these persons are kept under detention, it is not only risky, but also dangerous to the communal harmony and cohesion and to the law and order in the entire State of Tamilnadu. By relying upon all these materials, learned Additional Public Prosecutor has argued that the respondents had established a case of necessity for passing the detention orders. 11. Learned counsel for the detenus has contended that there was no proximity between the alleged prejudicial activities and the detention orders. In this connection, reliance was placed on the following case laws : "i. Abdul Munnaf Vs.State of West Bengal (1974 Crl.L.J.1233); ii. Sk.Serajul Vs. State of West Bengal (1975 Crl.L.J.1328); and iii.Jagan Nath Vs. State of West Bengal (1975 Crl.L.J.1329)." 12. In the judgment reported in Abdul Munnaf 's case (1974 Crl.L.J.1233) (supra), it was found that a period of nine months had elapsed between the incident of June 7, 1971 and the order of detention, which was made on March 3, 1972. It was held therein that as the delay of nine months in the making of the order for detention after the alleged incident had not been explained, it would follow that the delay of nine months remained unexplained and was fatal. The judgment in the case of Lakshman Khatik Vs. State of West Bengal ( AIR 1974 SC 1264 : 1974 Crl.L.J.936) was dealt with in the judgment reported in 1974 Crl.L.J.1233 (supra). It was further held that the delay of seven months in making an order of detention after the incident which led to the making of that order was fatal. 13. Similarly, in the judgment in the case of Jagan Nath's case (1975 Crl.L.J.1329) (supra), when the delay between the occurrence of incident and the order of detention was not properly explained, it was held against the detention. 14. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor has relied upon the judgment in the case of Ahamedkutty Vs. 13. Similarly, in the judgment in the case of Jagan Nath's case (1975 Crl.L.J.1329) (supra), when the delay between the occurrence of incident and the order of detention was not properly explained, it was held against the detention. 14. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor has relied upon the judgment in the case of Ahamedkutty Vs. Union of India (1990 SCC (Crl.) 258) wherein it was held that the delay in passing the detention order will not by itself vitiate the detention order when the order was passed after detailed investigation and consideration of facts. That was a case in which the detenu was arrested formally on 31.1.1988 and the detention order was passed only on 25.6.1988. It was explained that the Collector of Customs sent the proposal for detention on 27.5.1988 along with the draft grounds and the screening committee meeting was proposed to be held on 10.6.1988, but was actually held on 21.6.1988, on which date, the detenu's case was considered to be fit for detention under the COFEPOSA Act. It was held that it cannot be said that the nexus between the Smuggling Act and the detention order was snapped or that the grounds became stale. 15. In this case also, the arrest might have been on 29.11.2002 and 3.12.2002. But, the confessions and certain materials recovered in accordance with the confessions were only showing some intention in the minds of the detenus to do away with certain individuals and leaders of Hindu community and polity. There was no material available in those confessions about the proposed execution thereof. The intention would be termed as conspiracy only when the scheme of intention is shown to have been formulated in such a manner as to get it executed in a particular style or course of action. 16. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor has argued that they have come to know only the intent of the detenus by their confessions dated 3.12.2002 and the pursuant recovery. But, they were able to connect the link between the intention of the detenus with a scheme of action only by virtue of the confessions dated 19.3.2003 and 3.5.2003 respectively of Tauvubeek and Amidh Pakiri. It is in those confessions, vivid description was made as to how they have planned to execute their intention in the festival of 'Vinayagar Chadurthi' and how the places of Hindu temples are under the target of attack. 17. It is in those confessions, vivid description was made as to how they have planned to execute their intention in the festival of 'Vinayagar Chadurthi' and how the places of Hindu temples are under the target of attack. 17. Even between the period from 3.12.2002 to 19.3.2003, the prosecution was not said to have been slack because of the continued process of investigation taken by the special investigation team. They were going on collecting materials after materials day-by-day and there was remarkable improvement found in the investigation also. It is not as if they decided all of a sudden to get the confessions on 19.3.2003 in order to make a proximate connection with the orders of detention dated 5.6.2003. The chemical analyst's report was said to have been obtained on 17.12.2002 and the sanction order for proceeding with the prosecution under the Explosives Act was obtained on 10.2.2003. Therefore, between the date of arrest on 29.11.2002 and the detention orders, we are able to find nexus in the confessions on 19.3.2003, 3.5.2003 with the sanction obtained in February 2003 subsequent to the report of the chemical analyst in December 2002. 18. The series of actions would only show the involvement by the investigating agency and it is in this way, they had explained the gap between the date of arrest, namely 29.11.2002 and the detention orders dated 5.6.2003. As mentioned in 1990 SCC (Crl.) 258 (supra), we find that there are sufficient reasons and proper acceptable explanations to hold that the nexus between the ground case and the orders of detention was not snapped. Thus, the case laws cited by the learned counsel for the detenus are met with accordingly and distinguished. 19. In the case of Abdul Salam Vs. Union of India ( AIR 1990 SC 1446 ), reliance was placed on the following observations made in the earlier judgment in the case of Yogendra Murari Vs. State of U.P. ( AIR 1988 SC 1835 ) : "It is not right to assume that an order of detention has to be mechanically struck down if passed after some delay... It is necessary to consider circumstances in each individual case to find out whether the delay has been satisfactorily explained or not." Inasmuch as the explanation is properly made, the detention orders will stand. 20. It is necessary to consider circumstances in each individual case to find out whether the delay has been satisfactorily explained or not." Inasmuch as the explanation is properly made, the detention orders will stand. 20. The next argument that was advanced is that the detention order was passed on the basis of the passport particulars of one Imran, who was said to have burked certain explosives. But, in the counter affidavit of the Commissioner of Police, Greater Chennai, it was contended that that aspect has not been grounded at all for passing the orders of detention. Therefore, this aspect cannot at all be relied upon by the detenus. 21. The other thing that was argued was that in the copies supplied to the detenus, there were some differences in the Tamil and English versions of the order dated 29.11.2002 of the Thirteenth Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai. On a careful perusal of the same, we find that they are conveying the same meaning in respect of the subject that they do concern. There is no difference found in the English version of the order as well as the Tamil translation thereto supplied to the detenus. 22. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor also pointed out that the detention orders in all the cases were passed on 5.6.2003 and the Government approved the same on 14.6.2003. The representation was received by the Government on 23.6.2003 and the Minister for Law considered and rejected the same on 27.6.2003. We have perused all such representations in each case and there is no delay that can be drawn in favour of the detenus. 23. For the above reasons, we find that the detention orders suffer no lacuna and accordingly, the habeas corpus petitions are dismissed.