- (1.) On 27th September, 1983 a three-Judge Bench of this Court doubted the correctness of the 'wide observations' made in the case of Ram Bali Rajbhar v. State of West Bengal (1975) 3 SCR 63 : (AIR 1975 SC 623 : 1975 Cri LJ 592), and being of the opinion that the view expressed in Pushpa v. Union of India, AIR 1979 SC 1953 : (1979 Cri LJ 1314) ran in the teeth of the judgment in Rajbhar's case (supra) referred the matter to a larger Bench. The referring Bench noticing that the detenu had already suffered detention for a period of 10 months out of the 12 months period of detention imposed by the order dated 15th December, 1982, directed the detenu to be released on parole.
(2.) Mr. Harjinder Singh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has taken us through the judgments in Rajbhar's case (AIR 1975 SC 623 : 1975 Cri LJ 592) and Pushpa's case (AIR 1979 SC 1953 : 1979 Cri LJ 1314) (supra). A careful perusal of both the judgments, however, shows that there is no conflict between the two. The view expressed in Rajbhar's case (supra), in our opinion, lays down the correct law and does not call for any reconsideration. Insofar as the view expressed in Pushpa's case (supra) is concerned, it deserves to be noticed that the learned single Judge, deciding the petition during the vacation, did not say anything which may be considered as running contrary to the view expressed in Rajbhar's case (supra). On facts it was found in that case that two representations had been made by the detenu against the order of detention and both the representations were placed before the same Advisory Board when it met and the Board considered the representations at that sitting. The argument raised in that case that the second representation had not been considered by an Advisory Board was thus found, on facts, as not valid. The Court, under those circumstances, declined to examine the contention whether personal appearance of the detenu to explain his case before the Advisory Board, since he had filed detailed written representation, infringed any of the rights of the detenu.
(3.) Learned counsel appearing for the parties have been unable to point out any area of conflict between Rajbhar's case (AIR 1975 SC 623 : 1975 Cri LJ 592) and Pushpa's case (AIR 1979 SC 1953 : 1979 Cri LJ 1314). In fairness to the learned counsel it must be noticed that they submitted that the reference does not require to be answered. We agree.;