w w w . L a w y e r S e r v i c e s . i n

Kashibai Bhiwa Balflekar (Smt.) v/s Under Secretary to Government of Maharashtra & others

    Criminal Application No. 94 of 1981

    Decided On, 27 February 1981

    At, High Court of Judicature at Bombay


    For the Petitioner: Kumar Mehta with J.D. Ved, Advocate. For the Respondent: M.R. Kotwal, P.P.,

Judgment Text


It is not necessary to make a detailed reference to the averments made in the petition because it is an admitted position that the detention order dated 3rd Octob

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

er, 1980 issued under section 3(1) of the COFEPOSA was served on the detenu on 6th October, 1980. On 6th of October, 1980 the grounds of detention were supplied but the said grounds were not accompanied by the relevant documents. The copies of the relevant documents were despatched vide letter dated 13th October, 1980 and were received by the detenu on 14th October, 1980 i.e. obviously beyond the time prescribed by section 3(3) of the COFEPOSA. No explanation is also given by the Detaining Authority nor it is disclosed that there were any exceptional circumstances or reasons which are recorded in writing for not supplying the document early. In view of this admitted position it is conceded by Shri Kotwal, learned Public Prosecutor that in view of the decisions of the Supreme Court in (Smt. Icchu Devi v. Union of India)1, A.I.R. 1980 S.C. 1983 and (Smt. Shalini and others v. Union of India)2, A.I.R. 1981 S.C. 431 as well as the Writ Petition No. 5873 of 1980 (Kamala Khushlani v. State of Maharashtra)3, decided on 6th January, 1981, the order of detention is void and the detenu is entitled to be released forthwith. Hence the rule is made absolute.

2. The detenu is directed to be released forthwith if not required in any other criminal case. The State Government is directed to take necessary action against the authorities concerned as directed by the Supreme Court in Writ Petition No. 5873 of 1980 (Kamla Khushlani v. State of Maharashtra)3, decided on 6th January, 1981. From the judgment of the Supreme Court in the said case it appears that the copy of the said judgment has been sent to the Home Ministers of all the State Government and, therefore, it is not necessary to reproduce the directions given by the Supreme Court in the said judgment.

Rule is made absolute