TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2006 (7) TMI 662
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ised challenging the detention order. But Mr. Tripathi, raised only one contention, before us, and, that is, ground No. (g ). It is stated in the ground that the grounds of detention were served upon him, the detenu was made aware of his right to make representation to the Detaining Authority, State Government and Advisory Board, but the detenu was not made aware of his right to produce witnesses and examine them before the Advisory Board, and, therefore, he could not exercise that valuable right guaranteed under Article 22 (5) of the Constitution of India. Ground (h) is related to this aspect only. Therein it is stated that communication in this regard dated 14-9-2005 was served upon the detenu on 21-9-2005 at 8. 30 a. m. before the Jailor....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... vs. Union of India and anr. and Dr. Vasant Kumar Pandit vs. Union of India. He also relied upon the Judgment of the Supreme Court reported in (1989) 1 SCC 193 State of Andhra Pradesh and anr. vs. Balajangam subbarajamma. 4. Learned APP tried to contend that the time given was sufficient for the detenu to make up his mind whether he wants to be represented or whether he wants to examine witnesses before the Advisory Board. He also contended that if at all the detenu wanted to be represented through a friend who is not a legal practitioner or wanted to examine witnesses, he could have asked for adjournment, but nothing has been done by the detenu in that regard. The learned app also showed his willingness to show, to us, the original record....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... action that gives the appearance of unequal treatment or unreasonableness - whether or not there is any substance in it - should be avoided by Advisory Board. We consider that it must be stated and stated clearly and unequivocally that it is the duty of the Advisory Board to see that the case of detenu is not adversely affected by the procedure it adopts. It must be ensured that the detenu is not handicapped by the unequal representation or refusal of access to a friend to represent his case. " Similarly, in judgment reported in 1982 Cri. LJ. 340, paragraph 105 was brought to our notice. Paragraph 105, reads as under : "105. The last of the three rights for which Shri Jethmalani contends is the right of the detenu to lead evide....