9911796707
TMI Blog1996 (8) TMI 534X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... resentation dated 15th September, 1995 which was presented to the Advisory Board was placed before the Deputy Chief Minister on 20th September, 1995 after receipt of the report of the Advisory Board. The Deputy Chief Minister considered the said representation and rejected the same on 4th October, 1995. The order of confirmation under Section 10 of the Act was made on 5th October, 1995. 3. The grounds of detention which were served along with the order of detention disclosed the criminal record of the petitioner who is described as a criminal having no ostensible means of subsistence and having no ostensible means of subsistence and having taken to crime for the sake of easy money by becoming an active member of the notorious gang formed by Shahuji Bhosle (now deceased) from Sion Chunabhatti area in Bombay. The grounds of detention disclosed that it was necessary to detain the petitioner with a view to preventing him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. It is not necessary for us to refer to the said grounds in detain in view of the short point on which we are inclined to allow the petition. 4. Shri Tripathi for the petitioner has raised s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Security Act. He is respondent No. 4 in this petition. All that he has stated in para 3 of his affidavit dated 4th June, 1996 is as under : 3. .............. I say that on 15-9-1995 the detenu did not make any written/specific request for the purpose of production of permission to examine witnesses before the Advisory Board. I say that from the abovementioned facts it is clear that the representation dated 15-9-1995 personally submitted by the detenu to the Advisory Board was duly and carefully considered by the Advisory Board giving him all the opportunities of hearing and, therefore, detenu's/petitioner's contention that the (sic) not permitting the petitioner to examine the witnesses inspite of specific request has resulted into violation of his rights is not true and correct. 6. Copy of the representation dated 15th September, 1995 is annexed to the petition at Exh. D. Para 7 of the said representation reads as under : 7. I also pray that I may also be allowed to produce some witness who know me and brought here to speak about me to enable me to rebut my allegations. 7. Shri Tripathi appearing for the petitioner has placed strong reliance no the observat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tside and to examine his witnesses who were also waiting outside was not considered by the Advisory Board. According to the detenu he mentioned this request in the representation which he made to the Advisory Board and which he presented in person to the Advisory Board on the 20th of August, 1985. That the detenu has a right to be represented by a friend of his choice and that he has the right to examine witnesses to rebut the allegations made against him has been held by this Court in A. K. Roy v. Union of India, . It dose not appear from the record placed before us that the written request of the detenu was ever considered. The High Court glosses over this fact with the statement that there was nothing in the record to indicate that the detenu had orally made any request that he wanted his friend to represent his case to the Advisory Board and that the request contained in the written representation was brought to the notice of the Board. We do not think that this approach of the High Court is correct. The request was made in writing and was made in the representation which was presented by him in person to the Advisory Board at the time of the hearing by the Advisory Board. He s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... enu had stated that he wanted to produce in rebuttal certain witnesses who were kept present and they may be examined in rebuttal in evidence. It appears that the detenu had also made a prayer for giving assistance of his friend before the Advisory Board. The Advisory Board appears to have permitted the detenu to have assistance of an Advocate or a friend at the time of hearing. The detenu did not avail of this facility and started arguing his case himself. This in all probability gave an impression to the members of the Advisory Board that the detenu did not want to examine any witnesses. It was in the light of these facts that in para 21 of the judgment in Vijay Kumar's case (1988 Cri LJ 951), the Supreme Court observed as under : 21. It appears from the observations made by the High Court that the appellant, without making any prayer before the Advisory Board for, the examination of his witnesses or for giving him assistance of his friend, started arguing his own case, which in all probability, had given an impression to the members of the Advisory Board that the appellant would not examine any witness. The appellant should have made a specific prayer before the Advisory ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
