IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. WJC No.506 of 2008 BIRENDRA NAT Versus STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- For the petitioner : Mr. Srinandan Prasad Singh Mr. Raghwendra Kumar, Advocates For the respondents: Mr. Yogendra Prasad Singh, Additional Advocate General-V Mr.Prahalad Kumar Bhagat, Junior Counsel to Additional Advocate General-V ------- P R E S E N T Hon'ble the Chief Justice & Hon'ble Mr. Justice Kishore K. Mandal ------ Dated, the 27th August, 2008 The only contention of the counsel for the petitioner in assailing the order of detention is that the order of detention, dated 07th February, 2008, was not served upon the detenu within reasonable time. According to him, the detention order was served upon the detenu on 29th February, 2008. 2. This contention is not specifically raised in the writ petition. However, since this contention was put forth by the counsel when the matter came up before us on 21st August, 2008, the government counsel sought time for filing a supplementary counter affidavit disclosing the date on which the grounds were communicated to the detenu. 3. Now, the supplementary counter affidavit has been filed - 2 - on behalf of the District Superintendent of Police, Saran. It is stated therein that the detention order, that was passed on 07th February, 2008, was served on the detenu on 08th February, 2008. Two documents, Annexure-A and Annexure-B, have been placed on record in support thereof. 4. The counsel for the petitioner would urge that the documents, Annexure-A and Annexure-B are forged. He would submit that the court may compare the thumb impression allegedly put by the petitioner on Annexure-B with the document, Annexure-4, annexed with the writ petition. 5. Firstly, we have no justifiable reason to doubt the authenticity of the two documents, namely Annexure -A and Annexure-B, annexed with the supplementary counter affidavit. Secondly, in our opinion, it would be hazardous to compare the thumb impression by looking at two Xerox copies. 6. We are not persuaded to accept the submission of the counsel for the petitioner that the order of detention was not served upon the detenu within reasonable time. 7. Writ petition has no merit. It is dismissed, accordingly. R.M. Lodha, CJ Kishore K. Mandal, J. Sunil