Preventive detention vitiated by non-disclosure of a co-accused's retraction, defeating subjective satisfaction and severability.

Preventive detention was held unsustainable where the detaining authority was not informed of the co-accused's retraction of confession, since the order rested on the combined effect of the petitioner's confession and the co-accused's confession. The omitted retraction was a material fact affecting the basis of subjective satisfaction, and the detention could not be upheld by treating the grounds as severable under Section 5A of COFEPOSA. Because the satisfaction was founded on cumulative material rather than a single independent ground, the non-placement of the retraction vitiated the detention order, which was quashed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the detention order was vitiated by non-placement before the detaining authority of the co-accused's retraction of confession, and whether Section 5A of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 could save the order.

Analysis: The detention was founded on a cumulative consideration of the petitioner's confession and the co-accused's confession. The petitioner's statement had already been retracted, and the co-accused's later retraction was a material fact that was not supplied to the detaining authority. On the record, the subjective satisfaction for preventive detention was not based on a single severable ground but on the combined effect of the materials relied upon. In that situation, the omission to place the retraction before the detaining authority affected the basis of satisfaction, and Section 5A could not be applied to sustain the order on a hypothetical severance of grounds.

Conclusion: The detention order was invalid and liable to be quashed; the petition was allowed.

---