https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=273181 In preventive detention, the Court held that non-forwarding of the detenu's representation did not vitiate the order because the Advisory Board had considered it before giving its opinion. It further held that a delay of about one month between the detention order and arrest was not so unreasonable as to negate the District Magistrate's subjective satisfaction on the facts. The Court also found no vitiation for alleged non-disclosure of criminal cases, since the record did not show that pending cases were withheld or that any material fact had been suppressed before the order was made. The detention order was sustained. en-us Fri, 20 Dec 1974 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 09 Jun 2018 12:51:14 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=273181 In preventive detention, the Court held that non-forwarding of the detenu's representation did not vitiate the order because the Advisory Board had considered it before giving its opinion. It further held that a delay of about one month between the detention order and arrest was not so unreasonable as to negate the District Magistrate's subjective satisfaction on the facts. The Court also found no vitiation for alleged non-disclosure of criminal cases, since the record did not show that pending cases were withheld or that any material fact had been suppressed before the order was made. The detention order was sustained. Case-Laws Indian Laws Fri, 20 Dec 1974 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=273181