https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=290314 Preventive detention is vitiated where the detaining authority relies on extraneous and irrelevant material in forming subjective satisfaction, because its influence on the decision cannot be safely separated; the detention was liable to be quashed on that ground. The challenge that the detenu was not in valid remand failed, as the remand record showed continuing judicial custody despite temporary hospitalisation. Non-placement or non-supply of a retraction letter did not infringe Article 22(5) where the communication was addressed to the Magistrate and not shown to be before the detaining authority. The objection to the competence of Directorate of Revenue Intelligence officers was also rejected. en-us Fri, 22 Dec 2000 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 19 Sep 2020 12:56:23 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=290314 Preventive detention is vitiated where the detaining authority relies on extraneous and irrelevant material in forming subjective satisfaction, because its influence on the decision cannot be safely separated; the detention was liable to be quashed on that ground. The challenge that the detenu was not in valid remand failed, as the remand record showed continuing judicial custody despite temporary hospitalisation. Non-placement or non-supply of a retraction letter did not infringe Article 22(5) where the communication was addressed to the Magistrate and not shown to be before the detaining authority. The objection to the competence of Directorate of Revenue Intelligence officers was also rejected. Case-Laws Customs Fri, 22 Dec 2000 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=290314