STATE OF TAMIL NADU & ANR. versus ABDULLAH KADHER BATCHA & ANR.

Citation: [2008] 15 S.C.R. 1099 · Decided: 12-11-2008 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Case Partly allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2008] 15 S.C.R. 1099 
....._ 
STATE OF TAMIL NADU & ANR. 
A 
v. 
ABDULLAH KADHER BATCHA & ANR. 
(Criminal Appeal No. 231 of 2001) 
NOVEMBER 12, 2008 
B 
---J 
~ 
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, P. SATHASIVAM AND AFTAB 
lit 
ALAM, JJ.] 
~ 
Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of 
Smuggling Activities Act, 197 4 - s.3(1 )(i) - Order of detention c 
- Representation by detenu and request for supply of certain 
documents - Rejected by State Government - Writ petition 
' 
by detenu - Allowed by High Court - On appeal, Held: It is 
the duty of Court to examine whether the detenu was deprived 
.. 
of making an effective representation in absence of D 
~ 
documents - Primarily copies of documents which form 
ground of detention are required to be supplied - High Court 
did not examine the effect on detenu on account of non 
supply of the documents. 
An order of detention was passed on 11.8.1999 under E 
s.3(1 )(i) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and 
Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974. High Court 
quashed the order of detention. 
""" 
Detenu made a representation and also requested 
F 
for supply of some documents and copy of order passed 
___. 
by High Court. State Government rejected the request 
' 
and indicated that documents were not relied upon for 
the purpose of detention. Copy of order of High Court 
•, 
was however supplied. 
I 
G 
~ 
High Court allowed the writ petition holding that in 
view of non supply of documents, a protection available 
under Article 22(5) of the Constitution. of India was 
1099 
H 
1100 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2008] 15 S.C.R. 
A violated. 
B 
In the instant appeal, it was contended for the 
appellants that the documents in question which were 
requested by the detenu to be supplied had nothing to 
do with the order of detention. ' 
Partly allowing the a·ppeal, the Court 
HELD: 1.1. The Court has a duty to see whether the 
non supply·of any document is in any way prejudicial to 
c the case of the detenu. The High Court has not examined 
as to .. how the non supply of the documents called for 
-had any effect on the detenu and/or w,hether non supply 
was prejudicial to the detenu. Merely because copies of 
some documents have been supplied they cannot by any 
0 stretch of imagination be called as relied ·upon 
documents. [Para 7] [1103-H; 1104·AJ 
Radhakrishnan Prabhakaran v. State of T.N. and Ors. 
(2000) 9 sec 170; J. Abdul Hakeem v. State of T.N. and ors. 
(2005) 7 SCC 70 and Suni/a Jain v. Union of India and Anr. 
E (2006) 3 sec 321, relied on. 
1.2. While examining whether non supply of a 
document would prejudic.e a detenu ~he C~urt has· to 
examine whether the detenu. would be deprived'.,of 
A 
. 
. 
F making an effective repre..sentation in the absence of a 
document. PrimarUy, the copies which form the ground 
for de.tention are to be supplied and non supply thereof 
would cause prejudice to the detenu. But documents 
which are merely referred to for the purpose of narration 
G of facts in that sense cannot be termed to be documents 
without the supply of which the detenu is prejudiced. The 
High Cou·rt has lost sight of the relevant factors and, 
therefore, the impugned order of the High Court is clearly 
unsustainable and is therefore set aside. [Paras 8 and 9] 
. H [1104-8-0] 
. ; 
..,...
• 
' i-
j. 
r 
)-
)oc 
!"' l 
STATE OF TAMIL NADU & ANR. v. ABDULLAH KADHER 1101 
. 
. 
BATCHA & ANR. LTD. 
,.. 
State of Tamil Nadu & Anr. v. A/agar (2006) 7 SCC 540, 
A 
""""' 
relied on. 
2. Considering the nature of the order of detention 
which is essentially preventive in character, it would be 
appropriate for the State Government and the detaining 
authority to consider whether there is any need to take 
B 
' 
the detenu back to detention for serving the remainder 
~ 
...... 
of the period of detention which was indicated in the 
order of detention. [Para 11] [1105-B-C] 
Case Law Reference: 
c 
(2000) s sec 110 
relied on 
Para 5 
(2005) 1 sec 10 
relied on 
Para 6 
~ 
(2006) 3 sec 321 
' 
relied on 
Para 6 
D 
. --( 
(2006) 1 sec 540 
relied on 
Para 10 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal 
No. 231 of 2001. 
From the final Order dated 30.3.2000 of the High Court of 
E 
Judicature at Madras in Habeas Corpus Petition No. 1754 of 
1999. 
T.L.V. Iyer, Sr. Adv. V.G. Pragasam for the Appellants. 
F 
KK. Mani, C.K.R. Lenin Sekar, Mayur R. Shah, Rajni Singh 
and B. Krishna Prasad for the Respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
DR. ARIJIT PASAYA

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.