(1.) Petitioner is the wife of the detenu Mohammed. On 26-5-1995, foreign currency worth Rs. 13.25 lakhs were seized from the aforesaid Mohammed at Kozhikode Airport when he was about to board East West Airlines to Bombay. The foreign currency was concealed in the false bottom of the brief case. On being questioned, Mohammed stated that the brief case containing the foreign currency was entrusted to him by one Madathil Saindeen with a direction to hand over the same to one Basheed who is staying in Rafeeque House, Nagapada, Bombay. He was offered an amount of Rs. 10,000/- as remuneration for the work. The detenu was arrested on 27-5-1995 and was produced before the Additional Chief Magistrate (Economic Offences), Ernakulam. He was remanded to judicial custody. His application for bail was rejected by the Magistrate (Economic Offences), Ernakulam on 3-6-1995. Subsequently, he was granted conditional bail by the Sessions Judge, Ernakulam. Thereafter, the Commissioner of Central Excise and Customs, Kochi had forwarded the proposal for issuing the detention order against Mohammed and the detention order was issued on 13-10-1995 under S.3(1)(i) of the COFEPOSA Act, 1974. The detenu was detained on 10-11-1995 and admitted in the Central Prison, Thiruvananthapuram on 11-11-1995. The detenu filed Ext.P3 representation. This representation was disposed of by the State Government by Ext.P4 order dated 30-12 - 1995, while the Central Government disposed of the same by Ext.P5 order dated 23-1-1996. The matter was placed before the COFEPOSA Advisory Board and the Advisory Board found against the detenu as per its report dated 15 - l - 1996. Thereafter, the Government of Kerala passed the confirmation order under S.10 of the COFEPOSA Act and detention was ordered for a period of one year from 10-11-1995. The order passed by the Government of Kerala dated 24-1-1996 is produced as Ext.P6.
(2.) Even though many contentions were raised in the original petition challenging the detention, learned Counsel for the petitioner raised only one point at the time of argument, i.e. the grounds raised in ground of the original petition. According to the learned Counsel for the petitioner, the cause of action for the detention order arose on 26-5-1995, when the foreign currency was seized from the detenu. But, it was only on 13-10-1995 that the order of detention was passed. Thus, there is a delay of five months from the alleged cause of action. This, according to the learned Counsel for the petitioner, is very inordinate and no reason has been given why such inordinate delay occurred in the matter of issuing Ext. P1 order of detention.
(3.) A counter - affidavit has been filed on behalf of the first respondent. In the counter - affidavit, the facts leading to the passing of the detention order have been stated. In paragraph 4 of the counter - affidavit, it is stated that the bail application submitted on behalf of the detenu dated 29-5-1995 and order dated 3-6-1996 rejecting the bail application were enclosed along with the grounds. But he had moved the Sessions Court by his application dated 27-6-1995 and was granted bail by order dated 6-7-1995. According to paragraph 4 of the counter - affidavit, the bail application dated 27-6-1995 and the order dated 6-7-1995 were received by the Government on 5-10-1995.