LAWS(BOM)-1995-1-37

LAURA BRITTO Vs. C D SINGH

Decided On January 08, 1995
LAURA BRITTO Appellant
V/S
C D SINGH Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY the order bearing No. SPL. 3 (A)/pnd 0194/56 dated 24th August, 1994 passed by Shri C. D. Singh, Secretary to the Government of Maharashtra under section 3 (1) of the Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988 (46 of 1988) hereinafter for the sake of brevity PIT N. D. P. C. Act, Shri Victor Anthony Fernandes has been detained. The petitioner who is the sister of the detenu seeks to challenge the aforesaid order of detention and the consequent detention of the detenu by filing the instant habeas corpus petition.

(2.) THE incident which has led to the passing of the aforesaid order has taken place on 2nd September, 1993. The detenu came to be arrested in connection with the said offences on 18th September 1993. On 8th April, 1994, the detenu was directed to be released on bail on condition of his reporting every week. The condition of reporting every week was relaxed and the detenu was directed to report every 15 days by an order passed on 31st August, 1994. As already stated on 24th August, 1994 an order of detention was issued. The detenu in compliance with the order of reporting reported to the investigating agency on 31st August, 1994, 14th September 1994 and 28th September, 1994. The order of detention was served on the detenu on 28th September, 1994, and the detenu was taken under detention.

(3.) SHRI Keswani, learned Counsel appearing in support of the petitioner has firstly contended that there has been a total non appraisal of the right of the detenu to make a representation to the detaining authority himself. He has submitted that the detaining authority has not informed the detenu of his right to make a representation against the order of detention to the detaining authority. It was enjoined upon the detaining authority to have the detenu informed of the right. The non communication of the said right of the detenu vitiates the detention order as the detenu could not make a representation at the earliest opportunity and the same has not been considered within the stipulated period.