Q. What are the equivalent citations for Mehrunissa vs State of Maharashtra ?

The equivalence citation are1981 CRILJ 1283 ; (1981) 2 SCC 709 ; (1981) SCC CRI 592 ; AIR 1981 SC 1861 ; LQ/SC/1981/83 ;

Mehrunissa Vs. State Of Maharashtra On 17 February, 1981

Q: Q. What was the bench assigned for the case Mehrunissa vs State of Maharashtra?

HONBLE JUSTICE BAHARUL ISLAM, HONBLE JUSTICE O. CHINNAPPA REDDY

Open iDraf

Mehrunissa v. State Of Maharashtra

Mehrunissa
v.
State Of Maharashtra

(Supreme Court Of India)

Criminal Writ Petn. No. 354 of 1981 | 17-02-1981

O. CHINNAPPA REDDY, J.

1. The principal submission made by Miss Rani Jethamalani, learned counsel for the petitioner, in this application for the issue of writ of habeas corpus is that copies of material documents referred to in the grounds of detention were not supplied to the detenu and he was thus prevented from making an effective representation. The documents about which the complaint is made are the Panchnama dated 15-1-80 said to have been recorded at the time of the seizure of the silver and the statement said to have been made by the detenu in the enquiry under Section 108 of the Customs Act on 15-1-80. Miss Jethamalani relied upon the decisions of this Court in Icchu Devi v. Union of India, 1980 4 SCC 531 [LQ/SC/1980/374] : (AIR 1980 SC 1983 [LQ/SC/1980/374] ) and Smt. Shalini Soni v. Union of India. 1980 4 SCC 544 [LQ/SC/1980/435] : (AIR 1981 SC 431 [LQ/SC/1980/435] ). No counter has been filed on behalf of the State of Maharashtra, but Shri O. P. Rana, learned counsel for the State of Maharashtra, urged that the copies of the documents were not supplied to the detenu as the detenu was already aware of the contents of the documents. That is hardly an answer to the submission made on behalf of the detenu. The detenu was entitled to be supplies with copies of all material documents instead of having to rely upon his memory in regard to the contents of the documents. The failure of the detaining authority to supply copies of such documents vitiated the detention, as has been held by this Court in the two cases cited by counsel. The detenu is, therefore, entitled to be released. He is accordingly directed to be released forthwith. The petition is allowed.

2. Petition allowed.

Advocates List

For

Bench List

HON'BLE JUSTICE BAHARUL ISLAM

HON'BLE JUSTICE O. CHINNAPPA REDDY

Eq Citation

1981 CRILJ 1283

(1981) 2 SCC 709

(1981) SCC CRI 592

AIR 1981 SC 1861

LQ/SC/1981/83

HeadNote

Constitution of India — Art. 226 — Habeas corpus petition — Non-supply of copies of material documents referred to in grounds of detention — Held, detenu was entitled to be supplied with copies of all material documents instead of having to rely upon his memory in regard to contents of documents — Failure of detaining authority to supply copies of such documents vitiated detention — Detaining authority directed to release detenu forthwith