The main legal point established in the judgment is that the incomplete furnishing of crucial documents to the detenu impairs the detenu's right to make an effective representation, rendering the detention order invalid.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a writ of habeas corpus calling for the records relating to the detention order in Memo No.321/BCDFGISSSV/2002, dated 19.09.2022 passed by the second respondent under the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982 and set aside the same and direct the respondents to produce the petitioner''s son Rohan @ Palli, son of Doss, aged about 32 years, the detenu now confined in Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai before this Court and set the detenu at liberty.)

M. Sundar, J.

1. Captioned ''Habeas Corpus Petition'' [''HCP'' for the sake of brevity] has been filed by mother of detenu assailing a ''preventive detention order dated 19.09.2022 bearing reference BCDFGISSSV No.321 of 2022'' [hereinafter ''impugned detention order'' for the sake of convenience and brevity]. To be noted, fourth respondent is the sponsoring authority and second respondent is the detaining authority as impugned detention order has been made by second respondent.

2. Impugned detention order has been made under ''The Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Cyber law offenders, Drug-offenders, Forest-offenders, Goondas, Immoral traffic offenders, Sand-offenders, Sexual-offenders, Slum-grabbers and Video Pirates Act, 1982 (Tamil Nadu Act No.14 of 1982)'' [hereinafter ''Act 14 of 1982'' for the sake of convenience and clarity] on the premise that the detenu is a ''Drug Offender'' within the meaning of Section 2(e) of Act 14 of 1982.

3.There is one adverse case. The ground case which is the sole substratum of the impugned detention order is Crime No.200 of 2022 on the file of R-4 Soundarapandiyanar Angadi Police Station for an alleged offence under Section 8(c) read with Section 20(b)(ii)B of NDPS Act, 1985. Owing to the nature of the challenge to the impugned detention order, it is not necessary to delve into the factual matrix or be detained further by facts.

4. Mr. G.Nirmal Krishnan, learned counsel representing the counsel on record for petitioner and Mr.R.Muniyapparaj, learned State Additional Public Prosecutor, assisted by Mr.Sylvester John, Advocate, for all respondents are before us.

5. Though several points have been urged/raised in the support affidavit qua captioned HCP, Mr.G.Nirmal Krishnan learned counsel for petitioner in the hearing predicated his campaign against the impugned detention order on one point and that one point is, a bail order of a coaccused is referred to but only the first page has been furnished to the detenu as part of the grounds booklet and the remaining pages have not been given to the detenu. This has impaired the detenu''s right to make an effective representation which is a constitutional safeguard ingrained in Article 22(5) of the Constitution is learned counsel''s say. In support of his contention, learned counsel drew our attention to the booklet and more particularly page 229 thereat.

6. We had the benefit of perusing the booklet which was served on the detenu. After page 229 which is the first page of the said bail order of the co-accused, we find page 235. We find that the bail order of the co-accused is incomplete. We also find that the bail order is in English. This means that pages 230 to 234 (both pages inclusive) are missing.

7. In response to the above, learned Prosecutor on instructions from the fourth respondent submitted that the impact of non-furnishing of the entire bail order is minimal.

8. Learned Prosecutor goes on to submit that there was delay in getting the lab report and therefore, the final report / charge sheet could not be filed within 60 days in the trial Court. In this regard, we deem it appropriate to point out that Clauses (vii) to (x) of Sub-Rule (7) of Rule 25 of the Criminal Rules of Practice, 2019 and P.S.1 thereat makes it clear that there is a window available for investigating officers to file final report / charge sheet without lab report and that cannot be a ground to return the final report. In