Decided on October 27,1988

Anil Pira Baudh Appellant
Commissioner Of Police, Surat And Others Respondents


B.S.KAPADIA, J. - (1.)Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that though the detaining authority has not claimed any privilege under Section 9(2) of the PASA Act, the authority has withheld the full and complete addresses of the witnesses whose statements are referred to and relied on by the detaining authority and that has affected the right of the petitioner to make adequate and effective representation. It is also contended that though the petitioner-detenu asked the respondents to supply the house number, gali number, ward number, nature of business, etc. of the witnesses, the respondents have not supplied the same and hence he is deprived of his right of making effective representation which has made the continued detention illegal. He has also submitted that best efforts were made to trace the witnesses. He has also submitted that the petitioner's advocate has also written registered letters to all the four witnesses but the same were returned with an endorsement "incomplete address". In support of what is stated above, the petitioner has filed the xerox copies of the Registered A.D. forms sent to all the witnesses and shown to us the original envelopes with the endorsement of incomplete address made by the postal department. The petitioner has also filed joint affidavit of Santoshkumar, who is son of the petitioner's maternal uncle and one Madhukar, who is the brother of the petitioner, stating they have made best efforts to trace out the witnesses. Said Madhukar and Santoshkumar in their affidavit have stated that they tried best to find out the witnesses by making inquiries with larri-gallawalas, pan-gallas, etc but in vain. Once when allegations are made with regard to incomplete addresses of the witnesses and when demand is made by the detenu in the representation itself immediately after the detention order was served on him, i.e on 23-3-1988, he should have been supplied with the complete addresses but that has not been done. Further there is corroborative evidence in the nature of affidavits as also original registered A.D letters retutned by the postal department to support the contention of the petitioner. It is, therefore, clear that incomplete addresses of the witnesses were given and therefore the petitioner could not ascertain as to whether the said statements are genuine statements of persons whose names are mentioned as witnesses and/or whether such persons are actually existing or not. In absence of the same, the petitioner could not make an effective representation against the detention order.
(2.)If may be stated that no privilege under Section 9(2) of the Act is claimed by the detaining authority. When that is so, the petitioner is deprived of his right of making effective representation by not suppying complete addresses of the witnesses.
Rule made absolute.


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.