GEORGE NADAR Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU, REP BY COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY, PROHIBITION AND EXCISE DEPT, MADRAS,

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE point raised by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner in this case is that Section 162 Code of Criminal Procedure statements in respect of instances 3, 4, 5 and 6 of the instances which came for adverse notice had not been furnished to him, though it is stated that the charge -sheets have been filed in all those cases and they are pending trial in the respective courts. There could be no doubt that the entire case diary relating to those cases should have been furnished to the detaining authority and the detained authority would have perused them. In the circumstances, therefore, unless the copies of the entire documents furnished to the detaining authority are given to the detenu, it could not be said that he had a reasonable opportunity to meet against his detention within the meaning of Article 22 (5) of the Constitution. Accordingly the order of detention is set aside and the respondents are directed to set the detenu at liberty forthwith. However, it is made clear that if he is detained under any order of arrest in any pending criminal case, that will not be affected by this order.