{"id":126458,"date":"2005-04-11T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2005-04-10T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/abu-hanifa-vs-the-secretary-to-government-on-11-april-2005"},"modified":"2015-08-13T00:44:50","modified_gmt":"2015-08-12T19:14:50","slug":"abu-hanifa-vs-the-secretary-to-government-on-11-april-2005","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/abu-hanifa-vs-the-secretary-to-government-on-11-april-2005","title":{"rendered":"Abu Hanifa vs The Secretary To Government on 11 April, 2005"},"content":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court<\/div>\n
Abu Hanifa vs The Secretary To Government on 11 April, 2005<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS           \n\nDated: 11\/04\/2005 \n\nCoram \n\nThe Hon'ble Mr. Justice P.SATHASIVAM   \nand \nThe Hon'ble Mr. Justice S.K.KRISHNAN   \n\nH.C.P. No.1167 of 2004 \nand \nH.C.P.No.1168 of 2004 \n\n\n\nAbu Hanifa                             ... Petitioner in HCP.1167\/04.\n\nJaleela Beevi                           ... Petitioner in HCP.1168\/04.\n\n-Vs-\n\n1. The  Secretary to Government\n                of Tamil Nadu,\nPublic (SC) Department, \nSecretariat, Chennai 600 009.\n\n\n2.The Secretary to Government \n        of India,\nMinistry of Finance,\nDepartment of Revenue \n        (COFEPOSA Unit)\nCentral Economic \n        Intelligence Bureau,\nJanpath Bhavan, \"B\" Wing, \n6th Floor, Janpath,\nNew Delhi 110 001. \n\n3. The Superintendent,\nCentral Prison,\nChennai-600 003.                        ... Respondents in both HCPs.<\/pre>\n
        Petitions  under  Article  226  of  the  Constitution of India for the
\nissuance of writ of habeas corpus  to  call  for  the  records  of  the  first
\nrespondent  relating  to the detention orders passed under Section 3(1) (i) of
\nthe COFEPOSA Act, 1974 (Central Act 52 of 1974) by  the  State  Government  of
\nTamil Nadu in G.O.No.SR.1\/99 7-5\/2004, Public (SC) Department, dated 20.8.2004
\n(HCP  No.1167\/04);  and  G.O.No.SR.1\/996-4\/2004  Public  (SC) Department dated
\n23.8.2004 (HCP 1168\/04) and quash the  same  and  direct  the  respondents  to
\nproduce  the  bodies of detenus Hyder Ali (HCP 1167\/04) and Ahmed Basheer (HCP
\n1168\/04), now detained in the Central Prison, Chennai.\n<\/p>\n
!For Petitioners        :  Mr.Abdul Nazeer\n\n^For R-1 & R-3  :  Mr.A.Kandasamy \n                Additional Public Prosecutor.\n\nFor R-2         :  Mrs.Vanathi Srinivasan,\n                Addl.  Central Govt.  Standing Counsel\n\n\n:Common Order  \n\n\n(Order of the Court was made by P.SATHASIVAM, J.)   \n\n<\/pre>\n
        Questioning  the  detention order dated 20.8.2004, passed by the first
\nrespondent under Section 3(1)(i) of the Conservation of Foreign  Exchange  and
\nPrevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (Central Act 52 of 1974), one Abu
\nHanifa, father of the detenu by name Hyder Ali, initially filed HCP No.1167 of
\n2004.   During  the pendency of the above proceedings, the petitioner died and
\nthe wife of the detenu, by filing appropriate petition, is now  pursuing  this
\nHabeas Corpus Petition.\n<\/p>\n
        One  Jaleela  Beevi,  wife  of  the detenu by name Ahamed Basheer, has
\nchallenged the detention order dated 23.8.2004, detaining her  husband  Ahamed
\nBasheer  under  Section  3(1)(i)  of  the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and
\nPrevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (Central  Act  52  of  1974),  by
\nfiling HCP No.1168 of 2004.\n<\/p>\n
        2.   Since  identical contentions have been raised in both the H.C.Ps.
\n(except one additional  contention  in  HCP.1168  of  2004),  questioning  the
\ndetention  orders  referred above, both the petitions are being disposed of by
\nthe following common order.\n<\/p>\n
        3.  Heard learned counsel for petitioners, learned  Additional  Public
\nProsecutor  for R-1 and R-3 and learned Additional Central Government Standing
\nCounsel for R-2.\n<\/p>\n
        4.  After taking us through the grounds of  detention  and  all  other
\nconnected materials in both the cases, learned counsel for the petitioners has
\nraised the following contentions:-\n<\/p>\n
        (i)  Inasmuch  as the mahazar witnesses, namely, M.P.Seshagiri Rao and
\nG.Marimuthu, are one and the same in both the seizures and even  according  to
\nthe  Officers  concerned,  it had taken place at 00.30 Hours on 15.08.2004, it
\nwould be highly impossible for them to  be  witnesses  for  both  the  alleged
\nincidents.   This  material  aspect  has  not been considered by the Detaining
\nAuthority.\n<\/p>\n
        (ii) Statement of co-detenu was not furnished even though the same was
\nheavily relied on by the Detaining Authority.\n<\/p>\n
        (iii)  Bail  Petition  dated  18.8.2004  was  not  placed  before  the
\nDetaining Authority  while  passing  the orders of detention.  Further, though
\nthe same was placed before the Advisory  Board,  copy  of  the  same  was  not
\nsupplied  to the detenus which prejudiced both the detenus in making effective
\nrepresentation.\n<\/p>\n
        (iv) Though the Detaining Authority has relied on the  documents  like
\nBoarding  Pass  and relevant pages from the Passport, Tamil translated copy of
\nthe same was not supplied in spite of the request made by the detenus as  they
\nare conversant only with Tamil language.\n<\/p>\n
        (v)  No  clarification  was sought for by the Detaining Authority from
\nthe  Sponsoring  Authority  relating  to  certain  aspects  and  a  number  of
\ndocuments,  relied  on  by  the  Detaining Authority, were not supplied to the
\ndetenus.\n<\/p>\n
        (vi) In addition to the above points, in HCP No.1168 of  2004,  it  is
\nstated  that  the  Detaining Authority has relied on extraneous materials (one
\nKabir’s statement).  Non-furnishing of copy of the same to the detenu vitiates
\nthe order of detention.\n<\/p>\n
        5.  Now, we shall consider the points referred above in seriatim.\n<\/p>\n
        6.  Coming to the argument relating to “impossibility  principle”,  it
\nis  brought  to  our  notice  that seizure was effected in respect of both the
\ndetenus, viz., Hyder Ali and Ahamed Basheer, at the same time  and  place,  in
\nsuch  circumstances, according to the learned counsel for the petitioners, the
\nmahazar witnesses, viz., M.P.Seshagiri Rao and  G.Marimuthu,  would  not  have
\nwitnessed both  the seizures at the same time.  In this regard, it is relevant
\nto refer that even a perusal of the seizure mahazar in respect of detenu Hyder
\nAli and the other detenu Ahamed Basheer makes it clear that though the seizure
\nwas commenced at 00.30 Hours onwards on 15.8.2004, the proceedings in the case
\nof Hyder Ali came to an end at 02.00 Hours on 15.8.2004.    According  to  the
\nDepartment,  the mahazar was drawn on the spot by using the computer available
\nin the AIU room.  Coming to the proceedings relating to Ahamed Basheer, though
\nit is stated that the seizure was commenced at  the  same  time,  viz.,  00.30
\nHours  on  15.8.2004, the said proceedings make it clear that the same came to
\nan end at 03.30 Hours on 15.8.200 4.  Here again, the mahazar was drawn on the
\nspot by using the computer available in the AIU room.  One thing is clear that
\nthough the proceedings in both the cases started at the same time, viz., 00.30
\nHours on 15.8.2004, it is seen that in the first case, it ended at 02.00 Hours
\nand in the second case at 03.30 Hours.  It is not in  dispute  that  only  the
\npersons,  who are available at the time of seizure\/ examination, are to be the
\nattesting witnesses.  It  is  highlighted  before  us  that  since  these  two
\npersons, viz., M.P.Seshagiri Rao and G.  Marimuthu, alone were within the area
\nwhere  the search and seizure had taken place, there cannot be any doubt about
\ntheir presence.  It cannot be claimed that it was very difficult for  them  to
\nnote and  attest  the  mahazars.    As  rightly  pointed  out, the proceedings
\nrelating to the first detenu came to an end at 02.00 Hours and in  the  second
\ncase,  the  same  came  to an end an hour and thirty minutes later, ie., 03.30
\nHours on 15.8.2004.    In  such  circumstances,  we  are  satisfied  that  the
\nprinciple  of  “impossibility”  cannot be applied here and there is no flaw or
\nerror in preparation of the mahazar in  both  the  cases  as  claimed  by  the
\nlearned counsel  for  the  petitioners.    Accordingly,  we  reject  the  said
\ncontention.\n<\/p>\n
        7.  Coming to the claim  that  the  statement  of  co-detenu  was  not
\nfurnished,  no  doubt,  a  specific  claim  in  that  regard  has been made in
\nparagraph Nos.19 and 20 of  the  affidavits  filed  in  support  of  both  the
\nPetitions.   This  claim has been met by the respondents in paragraph No.15 of
\nthe counter affidavit filed in HCP No.1167 of 2004 to the effect that only  on
\nsubjective  satisfaction,  the  Detaining  Authority  has passed the detention
\norder and that all the materials relied on  by  them  were  furnished  to  the
\ndetenu.   The  statement  made  in paragraph No.15 of the counter affidavit is
\nrelevant, which reads as under:-\n<\/p>\n
        ” It was this detenu who spoke about Thiru  Ahamed  Basheer  who  also
\nindependently  received  similar  such  packet containing foreign currency for
\nbeing carried to Singapore as in the case  of  the  detenu.    While  so,  the
\nindependent  case  of  Thiru  Ahamed  Basheer  cannot  have any bearing on the
\nsubjective satisfaction of the detaining  authority  and  the  detenu  is  not
\nprejudiced  in  any  manner  and  is,  in  no way, handicapped from making any
\neffective and purposeful representation and thus the  detention  order  passed
\nagainst the  detenu  is,  in  no way, vitiated.  Thiru Ahamed Basheer is not a
\nco-accused in this case and his statement was not a relied  upon  document  to
\narrive  at  the subjective satisfaction of detaining Thiru Hyder Ali under the
\nConservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling  Activities  Act,
\n1974.   Therefore,  furnishing  of  statement  of Thiru Ahamed Basheer and the
\nmahazar drawn for the seizure of foreign currencies from him does not arise.”\n<\/p>\n
It is clear from the above information that though  some  reference  has  been
\nmade  about  Ahamed Basheer and Hyder Ali vice versa, it is the specific stand
\nof the Department that the other  detenu,  viz.,  Ahamed  Basheer,  is  not  a
\nco-accused in  the case of Hyder Ali.  Likewise, Hyder Ali is not a co-accused
\nin the case of Ahamed Basheer.  In  such  circumstances,  as  rightly  stated,
\nmerely  because  there is some reference in the grounds of detention regarding
\nthe presence of other detenu and a statement has  been  obtained,  it  is  not
\nnecessary to  furnish the same to the detenu as claimed.  Accordingly, we find
\nthat there is no substance in the said contention.\n<\/p>\n
        8.  Coming to the third contention relating  to  non-placing  of  bail
\npetition before the Detaining Authority, it has to be noted that the detention
\norder  was  passed  in  the  first case on 20.8.2004 and in the second case on
\n23.8.2004.  Insofar as the first petition is concerned, it is projected before
\nus that in the bail petition, the detenu has not only  retracted  his  earlier
\nstatement  but  also stated several material facts and the same was not placed
\nbefore the Detaining Authority.  First of all, even according to  the  counsel
\nfor  petitioners,  in  HCP  No.1167 of 2004, the bail petition itself is dated
\n18.8.2004 and it is not in dispute that the detention order in that  case  was
\nclamped on  20.8.2004.    In  the counter affidavit, in paragraph No.23, it is
\nspecifically stated that the bail petition filed by the detenu  was  not  with
\nthe  Sponsoring  Authority for onward submission to the Detaining Authority at
\nthe time of passing the detention order.  In such  circumstances,  as  rightly
\nstated,  the  question of considering the same and furnishing it to the detenu
\ndoes not arise.  With reference to the same point, yet another contention  was
\nraised that though copy of the bail application was placed before the Advisory
\nBoard, the  same was not furnished to the detenu as a subsequent document.  In
\nthis regard, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, by drawing our attention to
\nthe decision rendered in HCP No.808 of 2003, dated  20.11.2003,  would  submit
\nthat  first of all, the bail petition, being document of the petitioner, there
\nis no compulsion on the part of the Detaining Authority to furnish copy of the
\nsame, even otherwise, merely because the same was placed before  the  Advisory
\nBoard, it cannot be claimed that the same has to be furnished to the detenu if
\nthe  same  has  not  been  relied on to arrive at the subjective satisfaction.
\nWhile considering similar question, the Division Bench,  in  paragraph  No.20,
\nhas concluded thus:-\n<\/p>\n
                ”   While  advancing  the  said  contention,  it  was  further
\ncontended that these documents were not furnished to the detenu, but they were
\nplaced before the Advisory Board  which  is  in  violation  of  principles  of
\nnatural justice.    This contention in our considered view cannot be sustained
\nin the light of the above referred pronouncements  of  the  Supreme  Court  as
\nadmittedly  what  has  been  relied  upon or materials whatever relied upon to
\narrive at the subjective satisfaction  have  already  been  furnished  to  the
\ndetenu.   That apart, no prejudice has been shown or not pleaded by the detenu
\nanywhere.  ”\n<\/p>\n
On going through the materials  and  the  factual  position  therein  and  the
\ndetails before us, we are in respectful agreement with the said view.\n<\/p>\n
        In  this  regard, learned Additional Public Prosecutor has also placed
\nreliance on the decision of the Apex Court reported in AIR 1991 SC 2261 (Abdul
\nSathar Ibrahim Manik v.  Union of India).  In  Paragraph  No.10  of  the<\/a>  said
\ndecision, Their Lordships of the Supreme Court have held as follows:-\n<\/p>\n
                ”  From  the above discussion it emerges that even if the bail
\napplication and the order refusing bail are not placed  before  the  detaining
\nauthority  or  even if placed, if the detaining authority does not refer to or
\nrely upon or has failed to take them into consideration, that by  itself  does
\nnot lead to an inference that there was suppression of relevant material or in
\nthe  alternative  that  there  was  non application of mind or that subjective
\nsatisfaction was impaired.  When these documents are neither referred  to  nor
\nrelied upon, there is no need to supply the same to the detenu.”\n<\/p>\n
On  going  through  the  factual  details therein, we are of the view that the
\nabove ruling is squarely applicable to the case on hand.   It  is  also  clear
\nthat  what  has  been  relied  on,  while  passing  the  order  of  detention,
\nundoubtedly, has to be furnished to the detenu.  As stated  earlier,  copy  of
\nthe bail petition which was filed by the detenu himself was not available with
\nthe  Sponsoring  Authority  for forwarding the same to the Detaining Authority
\nbefore passing the order of detention.  While concurring with the  above  said
\ndecisions, we are unable to accept the argument of the learned counsel for the
\npetitioners.\n<\/p>\n
        9.   Coming to the other contention regarding non-supply of translated
\ncopies  of  the  boarding  pass,  Passport  etc.,  learned  counsel  for   the
\npetitioners  heavily relied on a Full Bench Judgment of this Court reported in
\n2002 (2) CTC 321 (Ansar Ali v.  State of Tamil Nadu).  In<\/a> that decision, Their
\nLordships, after  referring  the  decision  of  the  Apex  Court  reported  in
\nPowanammal v.  State of Tamil Nadu<\/a> (1999 (1) CTC 347), have held thus:-\n<\/p>\n
        ” ….    The  standard, printed and public documents like air-ticket,
\nboarding card, conditions printed on the passport, conditions  of  VISA,  etc.
\nwhich  are of common nature are not required to be translated and in this case
\nparticularly they are not required to be translated at all.  What is  required
\nto  be translated is something in the nature of an entry if the information in
\nthat entry is “relied upon” in the grounds of detention.  For example, in this
\ncase it was essential to give the translation of the boarding card because the
\ndetaining authority had relied on the fact that on the basis of  the  boarding
\ncard the  detenu  was travelling.  Such translation was also rightly given, in
\nour opinion, of the first and last pages of the passport because  that  showed
\nthe  fact  that the petitioner-detenu was the holder of an Indian-passport and
\nit was on that basis that he got the VISA but, we completely fail to follow as
\nto how and in what manner would  the  standard  printed  instructions  or  the
\ncautions or the general conditions on the passport or the VISA card are in any
\nmanner relevant for the present purpose much less for the purpose of making an
\neffective representation.    We  are  aware  that  it is not for this Court to
\ndecide as to for what purpose the detenu requires  the  documents.    However,
\nPowanammal  case,  cited supra, once for all settles the issue that it is only
\nthe “relied upon” documents or the parts thereof which would be required to be
\ntranslated and supplied to the detenu if the detenu does not know the language
\nin which the entries in the said documents appear.  We, therefore,  hold  that
\nin  this  case the aforementioned documents and more particularly the standard
\nprinted part of the public documents cannot be said to be  the  “relied  upon”
\ndocuments and the petitioner has not been able to show or prove satisfactorily
\nthat they  were  the  “relied  upon” documents.  Once they are not the “relied
\nupon” documents and are only “referred documents” then  the  petitioner-detenu
\nwould have  to  show  “prejudice”.  We fail to see as to what prejudice can be
\ncaused to the detenu by not providing the translations of the standard printed
\npublic documents which contents  are  common  in  those  documents.    In  our
\nopinion, there can be no prejudice and indeed the learned counsel was also not
\nable  to  show  any  such prejudice on account of the failure of the detaining
\nauthority to supply the translations of the pages 49, 50, 56, 57 and 61 of the
\npaper-book demanded by the detenu and more particularly the English  por  tion
\ntherein.”\n<\/p>\n
There  is  no dispute with regard to the above proposition and we are bound by
\nthe same.  It is also not in dispute that if the documents referred to in  the
\ngrounds  of  detention  are  referred  only for the completion of narration of
\nevents, the detenu cannot have any grievance for non-supply of the same.    As
\nrightly observed  in the decision reported in 2005 M.L.J.  (Crl.) 183 (J.Abdul
\nHakeem v.  State), the nonsupply should have impaired the  detenu’s  right  to
\nmake  an  effective  and purposeful representation in the matter of detention.
\nThe translated copies of the documents clearly show that the same refer to his
\nname and address, his seat number in the Air-craft and the Country  he  visits
\netc.   With  reference  to  the  same,  we have already perused the grounds of
\ndetention.   As  rightly  pointed  out  by  the  learned   Additional   Public
\nProsecutor,  though  reference  has  been made on many occasions, it cannot be
\nclaimed that those documents were relied upon and nonsupply of the  translated
\ncopies  in  any  way  caused  prejudice  to  the  detenus  in making effective
\nrepresentation.  It is also useful to refer the averments  made  in  paragraph
\nNos.13 and  14  of  the counter affidavit filed in HCP No.1167 of 2004.  It is
\nspecifically stated that the detenu is a regular foreign traveller and is well
\naware of the procedure thereto.  Further, the documents such  as  air  ticket,
\npassenger  list,  boarding  pass, passport and baggage claim tags are the ones
\nfurnished to or held by the passengers in the same standard form as  the  same
\nare  issued  to  every passenger irrespective of their educational background.
\nSimilar averments have also been  made  in  the  counter  affidavit  filed  in
\nsupport of  HCP  No.1168  of  2004.  We are satisfied that the detenus in both
\nthese cases are not prejudiced in any manner and  there  is  no  violation  of
\nArticle 22(5) of the Constitution as alleged.\n<\/p>\n
        10.   Coming  to  the  contention that the Detaining Authority has not
\nsought for clarification from the Sponsoring  Authority  relating  to  certain
\naspects  and that the documents sought for by the detenus were not supplied to
\nthem, the discussion of us in the earlier paragraphs is an answer to the  said
\ncontention.   In  the light of the materials placed, as could be seen from the
\ngrounds of detention, we are of the view that there is nothing required to  be
\nclarified as  claimed  by  the learned counsel for the petitioners.  Likewise,
\nregarding non-supply of the documents sought for, in the order passed pursuant
\nto the representation of the detenus as well as in the counter affidavit filed
\nbefore this Court, it is specifically  stated  that  the  required  relied  on
\ndocuments were  furnished  to  the  detenus in the language known to them.  On
\nperusal of the  same,  we  are  in  agreement  with  the  claim  made  by  the
\nrespondents  and  we find no substance in the argument advanced by the learned
\ncounsel for the petitioners.\n<\/p>\n
        11.  Coming to the additional point raised in  HCP  No.1168  of  2004,
\nnamely,  that the Detaining Authority has considered extraneous material while
\npassing the order of detention, a perusal of the grounds of detention and  the
\nmaterials  would  show that though there is a reference about one Kabir, it is
\nseen that based on the statement of the detenu, the Officers of the Department
\nverified with the person concerned in the Mansion where  he  (Kabir)  used  to
\nstay  and  it  was informed that he is not aware of the address and details of
\nthe said Kabir.  Merely because there is a reference about one  Kabir  in  the
\ngrounds  of  detention,  it  cannot  be construed that this has influenced the
\nminds of the Detaining Authority while passing the detention  order.    Though
\nlearned  counsel  for the petitioners has relied on the decision of a Division
\nBench of this Court reported in 1996 (1) MWN (Cr.) 197 (  Elangovan  v.    The
\nDistrict  Magistrate  and  another),  on  going  through  the  factual details
\ntherein, we are of the  view  that  the  conclusion  reached  therein  is  not
\napplicable to  the  case on hand.  We are satisfied that there is no substance
\nin the said contention also.\n<\/p>\n
        12.  In the light of what is stated above, we do not  find  any  valid
\nground for  interference.   Accordingly, both the Habeas Corpus Petitions fail
\nand the same are dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
Index:yes.\n<\/p>\n
Internet:Yes.\n<\/p>\n
JI.\n<\/p>\n
To<\/p>\n
1.  The Secretary to Government of Tamil Nadu,
\nPublic (SC) Department, Secretariat, Chennai 600 009.\n<\/p>\n
2.The Secretary to Government of India,
\nMinistry of Finance, Department of Revenue (COFEPOSA Unit)
\nCentral Economic Intelligence Bureau, Janpath Bhavan,
\n“B” Wing, 6th Floor, Janpath, New Delhi 110 001.\n<\/p>\n
3.  The Superintendent, Central Prison, Chennai-600 003.\n<\/p><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court Abu Hanifa vs The Secretary To Government on 11 April, 2005 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS Dated: 11\/04\/2005 Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice P.SATHASIVAM and The Hon’ble Mr. Justice S.K.KRISHNAN H.C.P. No.1167 of 2004 and H.C.P.No.1168 of 2004 Abu Hanifa … Petitioner in HCP.1167\/04. Jaleela Beevi … Petitioner in […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[8,13],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-126458","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-madras-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nAbu Hanifa vs The Secretary To Government on 11 April, 2005 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/abu-hanifa-vs-the-secretary-to-government-on-11-april-2005\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Abu Hanifa vs The Secretary To Government on 11 April, 2005 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/abu-hanifa-vs-the-secretary-to-government-on-11-april-2005\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2005-04-10T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-08-12T19:14:50+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"17 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/abu-hanifa-vs-the-secretary-to-government-on-11-april-2005#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/abu-hanifa-vs-the-secretary-to-government-on-11-april-2005\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Abu Hanifa vs The Secretary To Government on 11 April, 2005\",\"datePublished\":\"2005-04-10T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-08-12T19:14:50+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/abu-hanifa-vs-the-secretary-to-government-on-11-april-2005\"},\"wordCount\":3305,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Madras High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/abu-hanifa-vs-the-secretary-to-government-on-11-april-2005#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/abu-hanifa-vs-the-secretary-to-government-on-11-april-2005\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/abu-hanifa-vs-the-secretary-to-government-on-11-april-2005\",\"name\":\"Abu Hanifa vs The Secretary To Government on 11 April, 2005 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2005-04-10T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-08-12T19:14:50+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/abu-hanifa-vs-the-secretary-to-government-on-11-april-2005#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/abu-hanifa-vs-the-secretary-to-government-on-11-april-2005\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/abu-hanifa-vs-the-secretary-to-government-on-11-april-2005#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Abu Hanifa vs The Secretary To Government on 11 April, 2005\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Abu Hanifa vs The Secretary To Government on 11 April, 2005 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/abu-hanifa-vs-the-secretary-to-government-on-11-april-2005","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Abu Hanifa vs The Secretary To Government on 11 April, 2005 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/abu-hanifa-vs-the-secretary-to-government-on-11-april-2005","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2005-04-10T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-08-12T19:14:50+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"17 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/abu-hanifa-vs-the-secretary-to-government-on-11-april-2005#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/abu-hanifa-vs-the-secretary-to-government-on-11-april-2005"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Abu Hanifa vs The Secretary To Government on 11 April, 2005","datePublished":"2005-04-10T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-08-12T19:14:50+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/abu-hanifa-vs-the-secretary-to-government-on-11-april-2005"},"wordCount":3305,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Madras High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/abu-hanifa-vs-the-secretary-to-government-on-11-april-2005#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/abu-hanifa-vs-the-secretary-to-government-on-11-april-2005","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/abu-hanifa-vs-the-secretary-to-government-on-11-april-2005","name":"Abu Hanifa vs The Secretary To Government on 11 April, 2005 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2005-04-10T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-08-12T19:14:50+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/abu-hanifa-vs-the-secretary-to-government-on-11-april-2005#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/abu-hanifa-vs-the-secretary-to-government-on-11-april-2005"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/abu-hanifa-vs-the-secretary-to-government-on-11-april-2005#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Abu Hanifa vs The Secretary To Government on 11 April, 2005"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/126458","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=126458"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/126458\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=126458"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=126458"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=126458"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}