Judgment : K. MOHAN RAM, J. 1. The wife of the detenu is the petitioner in the above Habeas Corpus Petition. The detenu has been detained by the first respondent by the detention order issued in G.O. No. SR.I/161-5/2010 Public (S.C.) Department dated 25.5.2010 by exercising the power conferred with the first respondent under Section 3(1) (i) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (hereinafter called as, COFEPOSA Act). The detention is being challenged in the above, Habeas Corpus Petition. 2. On 23.1.2010, the intelligence officer attached to the Air Cargo Intelligence Unit, Air Cargo Complex, Chennai - 27 summoned two independent mahazar witnesses to be present at Esquire Common User Terminal, Old Airport, Meenambakkam, Chennai to witness the opening and examination of two numbers of brown colour carton box covered under AWB No. ER 341521199SG and ER341521171SG booked through the registered courier XPS Courier, Chennai booked by Thiru. A. Rajasekar, BL/C 327, 07 No. 17/7, Yishnris Road, Singapore consigned to Thiru. K. Giritharan, New No. 9, Viswanathan Street, Rathanagar, Chrompet, Chennai, arrived by Flight No. 9W 015 dated 19.12.2009 covered under Courier Bill of Entry No. 5347 dated 21.1.2010. Accordingly, two mahazar witnesses were present. The mahazar witnesses were informed that the goods were declared as books and milk and that on scanning, it was found to have contained images looking like watches and at the image of the goods of the said courier parcels did not tally with the description of the goods mentioned as books and milk in the courier bill of entry, the packager were detained by the officer attached to the Courier Cell and the carton boxes were handed over to the custodian of the Esquire Express Courier Terminal duly sealed with Customs Seal No. 200 for further investigation. In the presence of witnesses, the carton boxes were examined and it was found that the same had been booked in the name of one Thiru. Giritharan. Thiru. Giritharan was questioned in the presence of independent witnesses about the contents of packages and whether the said parcels belong to him. Thereafter, he admitted that his real name was Thiru. S Mohammed Rja Ali and he purposely booked the consignments in the name of Thiru. Giritharan and also had signed the authorisation in the name of Thiru. Giritharan. Thiru. Giritharan was questioned in the presence of independent witnesses about the contents of packages and whether the said parcels belong to him. Thereafter, he admitted that his real name was Thiru. S Mohammed Rja Ali and he purposely booked the consignments in the name of Thiru. Giritharan and also had signed the authorisation in the name of Thiru. Giritharan and also produced a fabricated xerox copy of the driving licence bearing No. E/TN/01/000316/2000 dated 29.2.2000 having the address as No. 4-A, Viswanathan Street, Chennai -44. Then, the package was opened in the presence of witnesses and on examination, it was found to contain 293 Nos. of assorted Titan wrist watches in Box No. I and 345 Nos. of assorted Titan Wrist watches in Box No. II. As the description of the goods imported was grossly mis-declared and also there was no valid documents for these imports, 638 Nos. of watches were seized under the mahazar for action under the Customs Act, 1962. The consignor was informed about the detaining of the parcel. On 21.1.2009, the detenu came with the authorisation letter and identity proof for clearance. Thereafter, an enquiry was conducted and as the custom officials believed that the detenu had committed offence punishable under Sections 132 and 135 Sections 132 and 135 of the Customs Act, 1962 read with Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992, he was, arrested on 24.1.2010 and produced before the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate E.O.II, Egmore, Chennai on 24.1.2010 and he was remanded to judicial custody till 5.2.2010. The remand was further extended upto 19.2.2010. Subsequently, on 18.2.2010, the detenu was enlarged on bail by the Principal Sessions Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai and his bail conditions also came to be relaxed on 19.3.2010. Thereafter, steps were taken to initiate adjudication and prosecution proceedings against the detenu. But in the meantime, as the State Government was satisfied that in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, it was necessary to detain the detenu under the provisions of the COFEPOSA Act with a view to prevent him from indulging in smuggling of goods in future, the detention order was passed by the first respondent, invoking the power under Section 3(1) (i) of COFEPOSA Act. The said detention order is being challenged in the above Habeas Corpus Petition. 3. Heard both sides. 4. Mr. The said detention order is being challenged in the above Habeas Corpus Petition. 3. Heard both sides. 4. Mr. A.K.S. Thahir, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that though several grounds have been raised in the petition, he has confined his submission to the ground raised in para 8 of the affidavit and submitted that the order of detention was passed on 25.5.2010 but executed only on 24.5.2011, almost one year after the order of detention was passed. Learned counsel submitted that between 25.5.2010 and 24.5.2011, the detenu was appearing before the Judicial Magistrate Court, Alandur in C.C. No. 366 of 2011. Learned counsel has enclosed the certified copy of the B Diary extract in C.C. No. 366 of 2011 in the typed set of papers. Learned counsel submitted that as could be seen from B Diary extract, the detenu was present before the said Court on the following dates viz., 23.6.2010, 9.8.2010, 4.3.2011, 7.4.2011 and 12.5.2011 and this fact was, very well known to the customs authorities and yet, no effective steps have been taken to execute the order of detention against the detenu and therefore, the order of detention is vitiated. Further, learned counsel submitted that because of the interval of twelve months between the order of detention and execution of the same, the live link is snapped. In support of the said contention, learned counsel placed reliance on the decision in Subash Chander Bajaj v. The State of Tamil Nadu and Others. 5. On the aforesaid submission, Mr. A.N. Thambidurai, learned Additional Public Prosecutor was heard, learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that immediately after passing the order of detention, the same was handed over to the concerned Inspector of Police for executing the same and as the Inspector of Police was not aware of the appearance of the detenu before the Judicial Magistrate Court, Alandur, he was not able to execute the order. Mr. P. Mahadevan, learned counsel appearing for this second respondent adopted the arguments of the learned Additional Public Prosecutor. 6. We have considered the aforesaid submissions made on either side and perused the materials available on record. 7. Admittedly, the impugned order of detention has been passed on 25.5.2010 and the same was executed only an 24.5.2011. Further, it is an admitted fact that the detenu was arrested even before the order of detention was passed. 6. We have considered the aforesaid submissions made on either side and perused the materials available on record. 7. Admittedly, the impugned order of detention has been passed on 25.5.2010 and the same was executed only an 24.5.2011. Further, it is an admitted fact that the detenu was arrested even before the order of detention was passed. As rightly submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner, a perusal of the B Diary extract relating to Crime No. 366 of 2011 on the file of Judicial Magistrate, Alandur shows that the detenu had appeared before the said Court on the following dates viz., 29.6.2010, 9.8.2010, 4.3.2011, 7.4.2011 and 12.5.2011. In the said case, the complainant is the Customs Department and as such, the complainant could have easily informed the Inspector of Police, who had been entrusted with the task of executing the detention order. But for reasons best known to them the said steps have not been taken and the order of detention had not been executed within a reasonable time but came to be executed only on 24.5.2011, nearly after a delay of one year. It is pertinent to point out that though this ground has been raised in the affidavit as one of the grounds of challenge, the same has not been adverted to and dealt with in the counter affidavit filed by the State Government as well as the Central Government. It has also not been explained as to why the order of detention could not be executed with all promptitude and was executed only on 24.5.2011. 8. In the decision in Subash Chander Bajaj v. The State of Tamil Nadu and Others (supra), the Division Bench of this Court has held that in view of the decision of the Apex Court in T.D. Abdul Rahman v. State of Kerala AIR 1990 SC 225 : (1990) SCC (Cr) 76 : that if there is an undue, inordinate and unexplained delay in the execution of detention order, it would vitiate the detention order and following the same, the detention order was quashed on the ground that there was nearly three months delay in executing the detention order. Even three months delay is viewed seriously in that case. But in this case, as pointed out above, there is a delay of nearly one year in executing the order of detention. Even three months delay is viewed seriously in that case. But in this case, as pointed out above, there is a delay of nearly one year in executing the order of detention. The said decision of the Apex Court as well as the decision of the Division Bench squarely applies to the facts of the case and therefore, we are of the considered view that the order of detention cannot be sustained and therefore, the same is set aside. The detenu is directed to be set at liberty forthwith unless required in any other case. 9. In the result, the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed.