K RAHIMA Vs. STATE OF TAMILNADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) MOTHER of the detenu challenges the order of detention dated 06. 08. 2004, detaining one Ebrahim Mohamed Rasheed under Section 3 (1) (i) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (Central Act 52 of 1974 ).

(2.) HEARD Mr. B. Kumar, learned Senior Counsel for petitioner, Mr. A. Kandasamy, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for Respondents-1 and 3, and Mrs. Vanathi Srinivasan, learned Additional Central Government Standing Counsel for Respondent-2.

(3.) AFTER taking us through the grounds of detention and all other connected materials, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner has raised the following contentions:-a. Though the bail petition filed by the detenu came to be dismissed even on 06. 08. 2004, the date on which the impugned detention order was passed, the Detaining Authority has not considered the dismissal of the bail petition, which shows their non-application of mind in passing the order of detention. b. In the absence of a covering letter along with the documents supplied to the detenu, the detenu was confused, and of the fact that he was not told of the additional materials, he could not make an effective representation, which violates Article 22 (5) of the Constitution of India.