Preventive detention procedure: no suo motu adjournment duty after of legal aid, and police confessions may be considered.

In preventive detention proceedings, the Advisory Board is not required to adjourn the hearing on its own merely because a request for legal assistance is refused, where no adjournment is sought and no prejudice is shown. The detenu must demonstrate actual prejudice from the procedure adopted. A confessional statement made to a police officer may also be treated as relevant material for a detention order, because detention is based on executive subjective satisfaction and is not confined to evidence admissible in a criminal trial. The weight of such material remains for the detaining authority to assess.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the Advisory Board was bound to adjourn the hearing suo motu after rejecting the detenu's request for legal assistance, even though no adjournment was sought. (ii) Whether a confessional statement made to the police officer could be considered as relevant material for a detention order under the preventive detention law.

Issue (i): Whether the Advisory Board was bound to adjourn the hearing suo motu after rejecting the detenu's request for legal assistance, even though no adjournment was sought.

Analysis: The procedure under the preventive detention Act permits the Advisory Board to consider the materials placed before it and to hear the detenu in person if it considers it essential or if the detenu desires to be heard. The constitutional bar against legal representation in preventive detention proceedings, together with the scheme of the Act, does not create a duty on the Board to postpone the hearing merely because a request for a legal practitioner is refused. The right to a hearing is not treated as automatically violated by refusal of legal assistance where no request for adjournment is made and no prejudice is shown. The detenu must establish that the procedure adopted actually caused prejudice.

Conclusion: The Advisory Board was under no obligation to adjourn the hearing on its own, and the contention failed.

Issue (ii): Whether a confessional statement made to the police officer could be considered as relevant material for a detention order under the preventive detention law.

Analysis: Preventive detention is an executive, preventive jurisdiction based on subjective satisfaction and not on proof in a criminal trial. The strict bar under the Evidence Act against proof of police confessions applies to proceedings to establish an offence against an accused and cannot be expanded to control the materials available to a detaining authority. In detention matters, the authority is not confined to evidence admissible in a criminal court, though the weight of the material remains for the authority to assess.

Conclusion: The confessional statement to the police officer was relevant material that could be considered by the detaining authority.

Final Conclusion: The reference was answered against the detenu on both questions, and the legal position was settled in favour of the State on the two referred issues.

Ratio Decidendi: In preventive detention proceedings, the Advisory Board has no duty to adjourn suo motu after refusal of legal assistance in the absence of a request for adjournment and proof of prejudice, and a police confession may be considered as material by the detaining authority though its weight is for that authority to determine.

---