Ashok B. Hinchigeri, J.

1. The petitioner, wife of the detenue N. Narasimhamurthy, has called into question the preventive detention order, dated 15.07.2016 (Annexures A and B) passed by the first respondent and the order, dated 17.08.2016 (Annexure-E) passed by the second respondent continuing the said detention order.

2. Sri M.R. Nanjunda Gowda, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that hitherto 14 criminal cases are registered against the detenue and that he is already acquitted in four cases. Ten cases are pending consideration. He asserts that in no criminal case the detenue has suffered the conviction.

3. He has raised three specific grounds to attack the impugned orders. Firstly, he submits that the respondents have not furnished the legible copies of the documents relied upon by them for passing the impugned orders. He brings to our notice pages 10, 56, 112, 207, 209 and 212 of the compilation consisting of the copies of the documents relied upon by the respondents for passing the impugned preventive detention orders.

4. He relies on the Hon'ble Supreme Court's decision in the case of Man Jit Singh Grewal Alias Gogi Vs. Union of India & Others reported in 1990 (Sup