Detention based on one ground fails when a timely retraction of confession is not placed before the detaining authority.

Where a detention order rests on a single ground, failure to place the detenu's timely retraction of a confessional statement before the detaining authority vitiates the subjective satisfaction on which detention depends. The retraction, made the next day and known to the authority, went to the basis of the material relied on, so its omission was not a mere irregularity. Section 5A of the COFEPOSA Act had no application because the detention was founded on a single ground, and the order was liable to be quashed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the non-placement before the detaining authority of the detenu's retraction of his confessional statement vitiated the detention order.

Analysis: The detention was founded on a single ground. The retraction of the confessional statement was made the very next day before the Magistrate, and the detaining authority was shown to have been aware of it. Since the retraction went to the basis of the material on which subjective satisfaction was formed, its non-consideration could not be treated as a mere irregularity. Section 5A of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 had no application because the order rested on a single ground. The governing principle was that failure to place and consider such a vital retraction before the detaining authority strikes at the root of the detention.

Conclusion: The detention order was invalid and liable to be quashed in favour of the appellant.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a detention order is based on a single ground, non-placement and non-consideration of the detenu's timely retraction of a confessional statement before the detaining authority vitiates the subjective satisfaction and invalidates the detention order.

---