(1.) WE find that the case is covered by the decision of their Lordships in Yumnam Mangibabu Singh v. State of Manipur reported in : 1983CriLJ445 . In the present case as well, the detenu is a young college student of P.U. Class of Maharaja Budhachandra College at Imphal. He claims that he is a law abiding person and has had no connection with any of the allegations for which he has been detained under Section 3, National Security Act, 1980, for short 'the Act'.
(2.) VARIOUS points have been urged by the learned Counsel for the petitioner but we propose to take up the main successful challenge by the Counsel for the petitioner that the Constitutional safeguards of making an effective representation against the detention; which is available to the detenu under Article 22(5) of the Constitution and the statutory safeguards under Section 8 of 'the Act' have been breached, as copies of the vital documents which were the basic materials on which the detaining authority arrived at its subjective satisfaction were not furnished to the detenu and thereby he was prevented from making an effective representation. The first ground of detention reads as follows:
(3.) IN the instant case the main material on the basis of which the subjective satisfaction in respect of ground 1(a) was formed, entirely and exclusively based on the statement; the statement was taken into consideration by the detaining authority in making the order of detention but it was not furnished to the detenu. On the authority of Y. Mangibabu Singh (supra) 1983 Cri LJ 445 (SC), we find no hesitation in reaching the conclusion that non -furnishers of the copy of the statement prevented the detenu from making an effective representation against his detention and his constitutional safeguard under Article 22(5) of the Constitution was clearly breached. Similarly, grounds 1(b) and 1(c) speak about certain positive alleged criminal acts. Mr. Th. Munindra Kumar Singh, learned Govt. Advocate submits that the only basis for reaching the conclusions as contained in grounds (b) and 1(c) was the statement of the detenu made under Section 162, Cr.P.C. The copy of the statement, as alluded, was not furnished to the detenu at all.