Judgment :- Challenge is made to an order of detention dated 11. 2008 passed by the first respondent whereby the petitioner/detenu was ordered to be detained under the provisions of COFEPOSA Act. 2. The affidavit filed in support of the application along with the grounds of attack of the detention order and all the materials including the order of detention are perused. The Court heard the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner and also the learned counsel for the respondents. 3. The facts and circumstances under which the order under challenge came to be passed can be stated thus: .(a) On 9. 2008, the petitioner Gimik Piotr, holder of Polish Passport No.AP1571977 dated 6. 2006 boarded to Singapore by Air India flight IC 557/07.09.2008 at the Anna International Airport Chennai. Entertaining suspicion that he might be carrying Foreign currencies or Indian currencies either in person or in baggage, he was intercepted and on questioning, the officials of the department, not satisfied with the evasive answers, examined the stroller suitcase carried by him which found to contain six sheaves of newspapers kept along with personal effects and on examination, some of the sheaves were found to be pasted together and those sheaves appeared to be bulky. When they were pierced open, it was found to contain Foreign and Indian currencies kept spread inside and in the presence of two independent witnesses, it was found that 15,500 Euros, 39,700 US Dollars, 16,200 British Pound Sterling and Indian Rs.30,000/-worth Rs.40,72,878/- were smuggled. It was found that there was violation of Customs Act 1962 read with Regulation 5 of Foreign Exchange Management (Export and Import of Currency) Regulations, 2000. .(b) The petitioner gave statement admitting that he carried the currencies for monetary benefits. The currencies worth Rs.40, 72,878/-were actually seized under a cover of mahazar and they were confiscated. Further, the detenu was produced before E.O.II Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Madras on 9. 2008 and remanded to judicial custody. He filed two bail applications, one before the said Court and another before the Court of Sessions subsequently. Both the applications came to be dismissed on 19. 2008 and 210. 2008 respectively. The wife of the detenu sent a representation on 19. 2008 to the Commissioner of customs (Airport) Chennai and on consideration, the same was rejected. He filed two bail applications, one before the said Court and another before the Court of Sessions subsequently. Both the applications came to be dismissed on 19. 2008 and 210. 2008 respectively. The wife of the detenu sent a representation on 19. 2008 to the Commissioner of customs (Airport) Chennai and on consideration, the same was rejected. .(c) When recommendations were made by the authorities explaining the circumstances that it is a fit case to invoke the provisions of COFEPOSA Act to pass an order, the first respondent/ State, after being satisfied that it is a fit case where an order of detention has got to be made in order to prevent him from indulging in such activities in future, passed the order of detention. All the materials were placed before the Advisory Board and on scrutiny it was affirmed by the Board. Under such circumstances, this petition has arisen before this Court challenging the same. 3. Advancing the argument on behalf of the petitioner, Mr.B. Kumar, the learned Senior Counsel would submit the order of detention under the provision of COFEPOSA Act came to be passed on 11. 2008. As could be seen from the order, when the detenu was intercepted, he was found with a stroller suit case which contained 6 sheaves of newspaper kept along with the personal effects and when those sheaves of newspaper were found to be pasted together and bulky also, they were pierce open and it was found to contain Foreign currencies and Indian currencies which according to the department was smuggled. It was claimed by the Department that the Foreign currencies and Indian currencies were found at the time when he boarded to Singapore by Air India Flight on 9. 2008. The learned counsel pointed to the fact that these newspaper were actually Singapore newspapers and they were dated few days earlier to the checking date and they were issued at Singapore but no where in the entire records it was mentioned that those currencies which were actually kept pasted in the newspapers were from Singapore. This fact has been purposely suppressed. This fact has been purposely suppressed. The learned counsel took the Court to the statement alleged to have been given by the detenu and recorded by the authority and pointed out that at page No.37 of the booklet the words "and handed over bunch of newspapers" was actually inserted which would mean as if the friend of the detenu handed over bunch of newspapers along with the currencies and it was the act of the detenu to put these currencies into the newspapers and pasted them. The learned counsel also took the Court to the mahazar under which the currencies were actually seized and there also, neither the date of the newspaper nor the fact that the newspapers were from Singapore were mentioned. When a representation was made, this point was specifically raised and the particulars pertaining to the newspaper were asked for but till the end, they have not supplied the same. When the mahazar itself shows the newspapers as item Nos. 1 to 6 and when these particulars were asked for, the department was duty bound to supply the necessary and relevant particulars but failed to do so. This would certainly affect the order under challenge. 4. The learned counsel would further add that the order came to be passed since the Government has stated its satisfaction that in view of the act committed by the detenu, the detenu would indulge in such activities in future and in order to prevent him, the order under challenge was to be made. But in the instant case, his passport was actually impounded. When the passport was impounded through the Court or by the State, there is no possibility of the detenu indulging in such activities in future since he could not travel thereafter. Under such circumstances, this ground should also be considered by this Court. 5. The learned counsel relying on the judgment of the Honorable Apex Court reported in (2009)2 SCC (Crl.) 659 Pooja Patra vs. Union of India, would submit that in the instant case, it was only a single incident and there is no specific or authenticated material to indicate that the detenu had the propensity and potentiality to continue to indulge in such activities in future. Under such circumstances, even assuming that there was smuggling activity, the act of the detenu would not constitute a legitimate basis for detaining him under COFEPOSA Act and on that account also the order has got to be set aside. .6. The learned counsel on the last line of argument would submit that the order came to be passed on 11. 2008 and the post detention representation was made on 111. 2008 where the detenu has specifically asked for legal assistance before the Advisory Board. On 12. 2008, a reply was sent by the State wherein it is stated that the petitioner he has to appear for personal hearing before the Advisory Board on 112. 2008, further, he was entitled to have the assistance of a friend at the time when he appears before the Advisory Board and not an Advocate. The learned counsel pointing to this would further submit that even in the representation which was sent on 111. 2008, there was specific averment that the detenu requires legal assistance before the Advisory Board. According to the learned counsel, the representation made before the State Government on 111. 2008 along with the order and relevant documents and records should be placed before the Advisory Board for approval and if done so, the Advisory Board should have considered the same which forms part and parcel of the request so made by the detenu which is suffice and adequate and no independent request to the Advisory Board is required. Added further learned counsel, the Advisory Board has not considered the said request at all. In the instant case, the request of the petitioner was not answered by the Advisory Board. Hence, on the ground of denial of right, the order would suffer. In this regard, the learned senior counsel relied on the decision of the Honorable Apex Court reported in (2009) 2 MLJ (Crl.) 913 Maninder Singh v. State of Tamil Nadu. Under such circumstances, the order is infirm and it has got to be set aside. 7. The Court heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor on the above contentions and paid its anxious consideration on the submissions made. .8. Admittedly, the order of detention came to be passed on the aforesaid circumstances. In so as the contentions made by the learned senior counsel are concerned, the order under challenge is sought to be set aside on four grounds. .8. Admittedly, the order of detention came to be passed on the aforesaid circumstances. In so as the contentions made by the learned senior counsel are concerned, the order under challenge is sought to be set aside on four grounds. In so far as the first ground was concerned, as could be seen from the order, the detenu was found in possession of a suit case. On suspicion, it was found that it contained newspaper and the newspaper were found to be pasted and when they were pierce open it found to contain currencies of different countries worth Rs.40,72,878/-, which according to the department were smuggled. The grievance ventilated by the petitioner is that though it was contended by the department that the currencies were actually found inside the newspapers, the particulars of the newspapers that they were released in Singapore or they bore the dates few dates prior to the check up made by the Department was not found any where in the entire records and even when asked for, it was not furnished. The learned counsel also took the Court to the statement given by the detenu and recorded by the department shown in page No.37 and stated that the following words are found to be inserted "and handed over bunch of newspapers", according to the learned counsel. In reply, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor brought to the notice of the Court few lines later that the same words were actually found therein and thus, the words that was brought to the notice of the Court by the learned Senior Counsel were only interlineations which were actually inserted subsequent to the mistake found and it cannot said to be interpolation being purposely done thereafter. Apart from that, so far as this contention is concerned, the Court is unable to see any force for the simple reason, when it is a factual position that the petitioner brought the currencies inside the newspaper the non-mentioning of the date of the newspaper or the release in Singapore is of no consequence at all and no importance could be attached. Thus, the Court is unable be see any merit in this contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the same is liable to be rejected, accordingly rejected. 9. Thus, the Court is unable be see any merit in this contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the same is liable to be rejected, accordingly rejected. 9. So far as the second contention is concerned, viz., impounding of passport is concerned, it is not in controversy that the passport of the detenu was actually impounded and it is now in the custody of the Court. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit if the passport is impounded there is no question of the detenu moving out of the country. Hence, there is no possibility of indulging in any such illegal or smuggling activities in future. This contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner cannot be countenanced in view of the acceptable reply made by the learned counsel for the State that if the petitioner was allowed to be in the State, there is all possibility of committing the act of abetment which is also equally a crime and even there is all possibility of himself to move out illegally and hence, the said contention has got to be rejected. Mere impounding of the passport itself will not be a reason which would give way for tilting the order under challenge. .10. The third contention is even assuming the detenu has indulged in smuggling as claimed by the department, it was only a single incident and there is no specific and authenticated material to indicate that the detenu had the propensity and potentiality to continue to indulge in such activities in future and one occasion of smuggling would not be suffice or form a legitimate basis for detaining him under COFEPOSA Act. The learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the decision of the Apex Court reported in (2009) 2 SCC (Cri) 659 Pooja Batra v. Union of India and others. The Court is of the considered opinion that in a given case where propensity and potentiality of the detenu to continue to indulge in such offence are noticed, even a single incident would suffice. Therefore, the Court has to look into the facts and circumstances attendant on the incident which were brought to the notice of the Court. In the instant case, the petitioner was a foreign national and he was roaming to different countries. Therefore, the Court has to look into the facts and circumstances attendant on the incident which were brought to the notice of the Court. In the instant case, the petitioner was a foreign national and he was roaming to different countries. Even according to his own statement, he brought the currencies from the foreign country when it was handed over to him for payment of consideration of 2000$. Therefore, if he goes to different countries, there is all possibility of himself indulging in such activities in future. Hence, applying the test whether there was propensity or potentiality in this case, this Court is of the considered opinion that the contention putforth by the learned counsel for the petitioner cannot be accepted. Hence, this ground raised by the learned counsel has got to be rejected, accordingly rejected. 11. The learned counsel would submit that before the Advisory Board, legal assistance through counsel was not given, despite the request made. It is true even as per the enactment of COFEPOSA Act or the provisions of the Constitution after passing the order of detention when it is placed for approval before the Advisory Board, the detenu is not entitled to it. As far as the decision of the Honorable Apex Court reported in (2009) 2 MLJ (Crl.) 913 Maninder Singh v. State of Tamil Nadu relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner is concerned, in that case, a representation was made by the detenu before the Advisory Board and hence, the Honorable Apex Court has observed that the representation has not been considered and there is non application of mind. In the instant case, it is true that a representation dated 111. 2008 was made and it is true at the end of the representation he has specifically asked for legal assistance before the Advisory Board. It is pertinent to point out that this representation was made only before the State Government and not before the Advisory Board. The contention putforth by the learned counsel that the averments found in the representation made on 111. 2008 asking for legal assistance before the Advisory Board, in the considered opinion of the Court, is either adequate or suffice. The detenu has appeared in person before the Advisory Board and nothing prevented him from asking for legal assistance. The contention putforth by the learned counsel that the averments found in the representation made on 111. 2008 asking for legal assistance before the Advisory Board, in the considered opinion of the Court, is either adequate or suffice. The detenu has appeared in person before the Advisory Board and nothing prevented him from asking for legal assistance. It is true that the Advisory Board has to consider the representation made by the detenu for legal assistance but such a request has to be made before the Advisory Board. When he appeared before the Board and no request was made for legal assistance, the contention that it was actually made in the representation originally sent to the Government, cannot be accepted. When the petitioner was actually produced before the Advisory Board he could very well represent before the Board to have legal assistance. Hence, this contention putforth forth by the learned counsel cannot be countenanced. 12. In the light of what is stated above, the grounds putforth by the learned senior counsel do not carry any merit and the same are liable to be rejected, accordingly, rejected. The Habeas Corpus Petition is dismissed.)