9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (11) TMI 695X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... )(i) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as the `Act') in respect of one Abdullah Kadher Batcha (hereinafter referred to as the `detenu') who was directed to be detained. The order of detention was passed on 11.8.1999. The detenu made a representation on 4.9.1999. It is the stand of the detenu that he had sought for some documents including the judgment passed by the High Court in Writ Petition No. 13514 of 1999 which was dismissed on 10.8.1999. The Writ Petition was filed by the detenu on the apprehension that he may be detained under the Act. In the representation the detenu made a reference to the judgment dated 10.8.1999 and also to the writ petition. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... petition which was dismissed can be a document about which the detenu had no knowledge. The High Court erroneously came to the conclusion that the relied upon documents were not supplied. Actually, the factual scenario is just to the contrary. 4. As rightly contended by learned Counsel for the State the documents were read over and an endorsement to that effect has been made by the detenu. 5. In Radhakrishnan Prabhakaran v. State of T.N. and Ors. 2000(70)ECC198 , it was observed as follows: 8. We may make it clear that there is no legal requirement that a copy of every document mentioned in the order shall invariably be supplied to the detenu. What is important is that copies of only such of those documents as have been relied on by th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e absence of a document. Primarily, the copies which form the ground for detention are to be supplied and non supply thereof would prejudice to the detenu. But documents which are merely referred to for the purpose of narration of facts in that sense cannot be termed to be documents without the supply of which the detenu is prejudiced. 9. The High Court has lost sight of the relevant factors and, therefore, the impugned order of the High Court is clearly unsustainable and is therefore set aside. 10. In State of Tamil Nadu and Anr. v. Alagar (2006)7SCC540 it was noted as follows: The residual question is whether it would be appropriate to direct the respondent to surrender for serving remaining period of detention in view of passage of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
