Preventive detention fails when retracted statements are withheld from the detaining authority, depriving it of a vital relevant factor.

Detention based substantially on statements implicating the detenu in unauthorised foreign exchange dealings was vitiated because the detaining authority was not informed that those statements had been retracted before the Magistrate. The retractions were a material circumstance directly affecting the reliability and weight of the evidence, and because the fact was already on the court record through bail proceedings, the enforcement authorities were bound to place it before the detaining authority. The omission deprived the authority of a vital relevant factor for its subjective satisfaction, so the detention order was quashed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the detention order was vitiated because the detaining authority was not informed that the statements relied upon against the detenu had been retracted.

Analysis: The detention was based substantially on the statements of two persons implicating the detenu in unauthorized dealing in foreign exchange. Their retractions before the Magistrate were a material circumstance bearing directly on the reliability and weight of the material on which the detention order rested. As this fact had already been brought on the court record through the bail proceedings and was therefore available to the enforcement authorities, failure to place it before the detaining authority deprived it of a vital relevant factor for forming its subjective satisfaction.

Conclusion: The detention order was vitiated and had to be quashed.

---