K VELU Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The question referred before us is as follows: Whether the service of a copy of a petition in a proceeding to which the detenu is a party as an accused, service of such copy having become necessary subsequent to the order of detention and the purpose for which the copy is served is self-explanatory by a reading of that document, vitiates the order of detention on the sole ground that it was not accompanied by a covering letter.

(2.) The said reference came to be made by Jayasimha Babu and S.R. Singharavelu, JJ., as the learned Judges were not in agreement with the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court reported in 2001 (3) CTC 83 (RABIYATHIL PATHAVIA v. STATE GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU) wherein, the Division Bench had quashed the detention of the detenu under Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (in short COFEPOSA) on the ground that after the detenu was lodged in detention, some documents came to be served on him without there being any covering letter along with it so that, because of the absence of the covering letter, the detenu was likely to be confused and that could have affected his right to make a proper representation.

(3.) The judgment in Rabiyathil Pathavia case, cited supra, is seemingly based on the Apex Court judgment in State of Tamil Nadu v. Senthil Kumar (1999 SCC Crl. 299). It is pointed out in the reference order that the judgment of Rabiyathil Pathavia, cited supra, has been followed in two other cases, viz. Valarmathi v. State of Tamil Nadu (H.C.P. No.23 of 2002) and A.L. Ahamed Thambi v. State of Tamil Nadu (H.C.P. No.768 of 2002).