CHINNA PONNU Vs. SECRETARY PROHIBITION AND EXCISE DEPARTMENT GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU FORT ST GEORGE CHENNAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE complaint of the petitioner is that the remand order, the copy of which was sought for by the detenue in her representation was not supplied, that it was not supplied is not disputed. It is however contended by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor that it is open to the detaining authority to base his subjective satisfaction on the special report submitted by the sponsoring authority which sets out the fact of remand, and that in this case, the detaining authority had based his subjective satisfaction on such special report. While it may be open to the detaining authority to form his subjective satisfaction on materials, which he considers to be credible, that does not preclude the detenue from seeking documents which are necessary for the purpose of making an effective representation. THE fact that the detaining authority had not relied upon the documents sought by the detenu does not cloth the detaining authority with the right now to furnish such documents.

(2.) AS to whether the document which was not relied upon by the detaining authority has to be regarded as necessary for the purpose of making an effective representation is always a question of fact.

(3.) THE continued detention of the detenue in this case, therefore, cannot be considered as a legal, after the detenue's right to make an effective representation had been prejudiced by reason of non supply of remand order which had been sought by the detenue and which had been wrongly refused to be supplied by the detaining authority.