Research › Browse › Judgment

Bombay High Court · body

1989 DIGILAW 175 (BOM)

BASIL CHIKEZIE OFUEGBU v. HMINGLINA SECRETARY (II), HOME DEPARTMENT, GOVT. OF MAHARASHTRA, BOMBAY

1989-07-10

AGARWALA, S.P.KURDUKAR

body1989
JUDGEMENT Kurdukar, J. :- The petitioner-detenu by this writ petition under Art.226 of the Constitution of India seeks to challenge the order of detention dated 31st August 1988 issued under S.3(1) of the Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotrupic Substances Ordinance, 1988 (No. 7 of 1988) by the 1st respondent, the Detaining Authority. 2. Mr. S.B. Lakhani, learned counsel appearing in support of this petition raised several contentions. We may only deal with the contention as regards the infraction of Art.22(5) of the Constitution of India. The learned counsel urged that some documents supplied to the detenu were wholly illegible and, therefore, there was no communication of grounds of detention inasmuch as the detenu was denied the right of making effective representation. The learned Advocate drew our attention to the documents at pages 127 to 130, 163 and 174 of the Paper Book. We have ourselves gone through these documents and we find that all these documents are illegible. A specific ground has been taken in the writ petition that by reason of non-supply of legible documents the petitioner's right to make representation effectively has been violated. The only reply in that behalf given by the detaining authority is of denial. The Detaining Authority has asserted that the said documents are legible. We have ourselves gone through these documents and also showed these documents to the learned Public Prosecutor and the Advocate for the Union of India. We must state that the learned Public Prosecutor fairly stated that some portion in these documents is illegible. In view of this factual position, it must follow that because of non-supply of legible documents referred to hereinabove, the petitioner's right to make effective representation under Art.22(5) of the Constitution of India is vitally affected. On this ground alone, the impugned detention order must fail. 3. The impugned detention order in Criminal Writ Petition No. 159 of 1989 is accordingly quashed and set aside and detenu is directed to be released forthwith if not required in any other criminal case. There will be no order as to costs. Petition allowed.