QASIM ALI Vs. UNION OF INDIA
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
UNION OF INDIA
Click here to view full judgement.
M.Jagannadha Rao, C.J.(Oral) -
(1.)Rule D.B. The detention order in this case under the COFEPOSA is dated 29.3.1995 and several points have been raised by the writ petitioner. In regard to the contention that the reference was not made to the Advisory Board within Five weeks, counter affidavit has been Filed and the record of the Advisory Board has been verified by us and they show that reference was sent and was also received by the Advisory Board on 2.5.95. This point is found against the petitioner.
(2.)The next contention raised is that the petitioner was brought to the Advisory Board without being informed that he was to be produced before the Advisory Board and therefore, he did not have any time to engage a lawyer before the Advisory Board. A separate affidavit dated 27.11.95 by the Superintendent Jail No.1 was filed staling that the detenu was informed and that his thumb impression was obtained on the letter No.F-5/7/95 Home-Pt-II dated 28.4.95 received from the Deputy Secretary Home P-II. This letter informs the petitioner about the meeting before the Advisory Board. The petitioner was produced before the Advisory Board. The photo copy of the receipt of the letter dated 28.4.95 has been filed as Annexure 'A' to this affidavit.
(3.)After we looked into this Annexure filed alongwith with this affidavit, it was noticed that the Annexure merely bears the thumb impression of the petitioner. There is no mention that the important things mentioned therein were explained to the detenu in a language known to him. A look at the said notice would show that following things have to be explained to the detenu:
"You are, therefore, requested to enquire from the detenus whether he/they desire/s to be heard by the Advisory Board in person and if he/they so desire/s to make necessary arrangements for production before the Advisory Board on the given date, time and place.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.