9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (11) TMI 695X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... supply of a document would prejudice a detenu the Court has to examine whether the detenu would be deprived of making an effective representation in the 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. 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. Considering the nature of the order of detention which is essentially preventive in character, it ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... reference to the judgment dated 10.8.1999 and also to the writ petition. It was pointed out in paragraph 7(x) that in order to make the effective and meaningful representation, the detenu requires the copy of the order passed by the High Court. A request was made to supply the copy at an early date. It was stated in the representation that the detenu did not know English and, therefore, representation which was made in English language was prepared under his instruction and was read over and explained to him in Tamil. State Government rejected the request by communication dated 21.9.1999 and it was indicated that the documents were not relied upon for the purpose of detention. Copy of the order of the writ petition was however supplied. Hig ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ortant is that copies of only such of those documents as have been relied on by the detaining authority for reaching the satisfaction that preventive detention of the detenu is necessary shall be supplied to him. It is admitted by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the order granting bail has been supplied to him. Application for bail has been submitted by the detenu himself when the order of detention was passed which was subsequent to the order granting bail. We cannot comprehend as to how a prior order rejecting bail would be of any relevance in the matter when it was later succeeded by the order granting bail. But learned Counsel emphasised that the counter filed by the Department was a relevant document, a copy of which has no ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the respondent to surrender for serving remaining period of detention in view of passage of time. As was noticed in Sunil Fulchand Shah v. Union of India 2000CriLJ1444 and State of T.N. v. Kethiyan Peruma 2005CriLJ105 it is for the appropriate State to consider whether the impact of the acts, which led to the order of detention still survives and whether it would be desirable to send back the detenu for serving remainder period of detention. Necessary order in this regard shall be passed within two months by the appellant State. Passage of time in all cases cannot be a ground not to send the detenu to serve remainder of the period of detention. It all depends on the facts of the act and the continuance or otherwise of the effect of the obje ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
