https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=169828 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. en-us Wed, 20 Sep 2000 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 11 May 2015 15:06:02 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=169828 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. Case-Laws FEMA Wed, 20 Sep 2000 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=169828