Judgment

SANTOSH HEGDE, J.

( 1 ) THE petitioner who is under detention has preferred this writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India challenging the said detention.

( 2 ) WHILE the petitioner was a remand prisoner in Crime No. 1466/2001 of Vadapalani Police Station, he was detained under Section 3 (1) of the Tamil Nadu Preventive Detention of Bootleggers Drug-Offenders, (Forest-Offenders), Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders and Slum-Grabbers for Preventing their Dangerous Activities Prejudicial to the Maintenance of Public Order, Act (Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982), by an order of detention dated 18-2-2002 made by the Commissioner of Police, Chennai, 2nd respondent herein. The main grounds of detention are that the petitioner was indulging in offences under Section 67 of the Information Technology Act, 2000, Sections 4 and 6 of the Indecent Representation of Women (Prohibition) Act, 1986 and under Section 27 of the Arms Act, 1959.

( 3 ) ON receipt of the detention order in the Central Prison, Chennai, the petitioner informed the detaining authority that he is not able to read and write Tamil, therefore, he is not in a position to effectively represent against the grounds of detention supplied to him. In reply to this letter, the 2nd respondent stated that the statement of the petitioner that he does not read and write Tamil is false. At any rate, to be on the safer side, he supplied to him the copies of the grounds of detention and the annexures enclosed therewith in English.

( 4 ) HIS representation to the detaining authority as also to the State Government (respondent No. 1) having failed the petitioner has preferred this writ petition.

( 5 ) THE first contention raised by the petitioner in this writ petition is that while he was a remand prisoner and before the order of detention dated 18-2-2002 was made by the 2nd respondent, he had written a letter from the jail to the 2nd respondent alleging that the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Vadapalani had demanded a bribe of Rs. 5 lacs from him, threatening that if he failed to give the bribe then he would make out false case against him and arrest him. It is also stated before us that in the said letter the petitioner had complained to the 2nd respondent that because of the said failure to pay the bribe he was falsely implicated and arrested and the said police officer was taking steps to see that the petitioner is not released from the jail. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued before us that it is pursuant to this refusal to pay bribe, the very same officer has sponsored the case of the petitioner for detention under the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982. He further submits from the register maintained by the Jail Superintendent (respondent No. 3), that it is clear that this letter of the petitioner had reached respondent No. 3, however, he has not taken note of the same while passing the order of detention, consequently his detention order suffers from the vice of non application of mind to vital material. The respondent No. 2 in his reply filed before this Court has denied the receipt of any such letter, but since the learned Counsel for the petitioner strongly relied on the despatch register of the Central Prison, Chennai, to satisfy ourselves as to this fact we summoned the said register and examined the same with the assistance of the counsel for the parties. After perusing the said register, we notice that there is an entry dated 28-1-2002 in regard to a letter despatched by the 3rd respondent to the 2nd respondent, which the petitioner claims as his letter complaining against the said police officer. Along with the register, we have also received a copy of the letter received by the Commissioner on 28-1-2002 from the 3rd respondent and on perusal of the same it is seen that this letter is written by the respondent No. 3 to the 2nd respondent in regard to the arrest of one escaped prisoner Ravi and this letter has nothing to do with the complaint allegedly mad