Skip to content


Virendra Singh Vs. State of Maharashtra - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCriminal
CourtSupreme Court of India
Decided On
Case NumberCriminal Writ Petition No. 6274 of 1980
Judge
Reported inAIR1981SC1909; (1981)4SCC562
ActsConstitution of India - Article 22(5)
AppellantVirendra Singh
RespondentState of Maharashtra
Cases ReferredSmt. Shalini Soni v. Union of India
Excerpt:
- .....with the order of detention when the same was served on him, the order is rendered void as held by this court in smt. icchu devi choraria v. union of india : [1981]1scr640 and in smt. shalini soni v. union of india : 1980crilj1487 . moreover, the order of detention suffers from another infirmity, namely, that the representation made by the detenu was disposed of by the detaining authority more than a month after the representation was sent to it. no reasonable explanation for this delay has been given which violates the constitutional safeguards enshrined under article 22(5) and makes the continued detention of the detenu void. for these reasons, therefore, . we allow this petition and direct the detenu to be released forthwith.
Judgment:
ORDER

1. This petition has been filed by the son-in-law of the detenu praying that the detenu may be released as the constitutional safeguards contained in Article 22(5) of the Constitution have not been complied with. Admittedly, the order of detention was passed on 9-10-1980 and the grounds were supplied to the detenu on 1-11-1980 when he was arrested but without the documents and materials which were supplied on 5-11-1980. The detenu made a representation on 13-11-1980 which was disposed of on 13-12-1980. In this case as the documents and the materials forming the basis of the order of detention had not been supplied to the detenu along with the order of detention when the same was served on him, the order is rendered void as held by this Court in Smt. Icchu Devi Choraria v. Union of India : [1981]1SCR640 and in Smt. Shalini Soni v. Union of India : 1980CriLJ1487 . Moreover, the order of detention suffers from another infirmity, namely, that the representation made by the detenu was disposed of by the detaining authority more than a month after the representation was sent to it. No reasonable explanation for this delay has been given which violates the constitutional safeguards enshrined under Article 22(5) and makes the continued detention of the detenu void. For these reasons, therefore, . we allow this petition and direct the detenu to be released forthwith.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //