9911796707
TMI Blog2006 (6) TMI 501X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the State. 2. The petitioner is the brother of the detenu. His advocate raised only one point that even though in his representation to the Advisory Board, he has specifically prayed that he be given opportunity to putforth his case through the legal practitioners, it was not considered. In support of this contention, the learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon a division bench judgment ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed through legal practitioner, it was not necessary to consider his prayer. In view of the above said judgment and a specific statement made by the Advisory Board in its affidavit referred to above, we gave liberty to Mr. Mhaispurkar, learned APP, to go through the record and proceedings of the Advisory Board and then we re-heard the matter again. 4. After going through those papers, Mr. Mhaisp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the contention in their affidavit that detenu has no legal right to be represented in the cases of detention under the COFEPOSA Act. Secondly, the affidavit is in contravention of the record and proceedings of the Advisory Board, as pointed out above. What is meant by obvious reasons is not clear and consequently, it has to be held that the prayer of the detenu for permission to be represented b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
