M. N. CHANDURKAR, C.J.

Two questions of law have been framed by the Division Bench which according to the learned Judges required consideration by a Full Bench. The two questions are as follows.

(1) Whether the failure of the Advisory Board to adjourn the hearing when it rejected at the time of the hearing the detenu's request for the assistance of a legal practitioner even in the absence of such a request by the detenu, will vitiate the order of detention

(2) Whether the confessional statement made by the detenu to the police officer is admissible in cases of detention under a Preventive Detention Act such as Tamil Nadu Act No. 14 of 1982.

We are not concerned with the merits of the detention order passed against the detenu-petitioner. It is therefore not necessary to refer to the grounds on which the petitioner had been detained. We are therefore setting out only such of the facts that are material for the decision of the two questions which have been canvassed before us.

2. The Commissioner of Police, Madras City passed an order of detention under section 3(1) of the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drug-offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Off