2006 (6) TMI 501

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....AL JUDGMENT 1. Heard Mr. Maqsood Khan for the petitioner and the learned APP for the State. 2. The petitioner is the brother of the detenu. His advocate raised only one point that even though in his representation to the Advisory Board, he has specifically prayed that he be given opportunity to putforth his case through the legal practitioners, it was not considered. In support of this conte....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... detenu and under the COFEPOSA Act, the detenu is not entitled to be represented through legal practitioner, it was not necessary to consider his prayer. In view of the above said judgment and a specific statement made by the Advisory Board in its affidavit referred to above, we gave liberty to Mr. Mhaispurkar, learned APP, to go through the record and proceedings of the Advisory Board and then we....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....para (6), as stated above, then the Advisory Board was not permitted to raise the contention in their affidavit that detenu has no legal right to be represented in the cases of detention under the COFEPOSA Act. Secondly, the affidavit is in contravention of the record and proceedings of the Advisory Board, as pointed out above. What is meant by "obvious reasons" is not clear and consequently, it h....