Back
High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ELIPE DHARMA RAO & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE D. HARIPARANTHAMAN
Ananthi
Versus
The Secretary to Government, Food and Consumer Protection Department & Another
Habeas Corpus Petition No.1694 of 2009
Decided On : 30-11-2009
(B)Constitution of India-Art.22, 226- Preventive detention-Representation-Telegram-Non-consideration-A telegram by itself is not an authenticated document and to treat it as a valid representation for the detenu, it has to be confirmed by a subsequent signed application, representation or an affidavit.
A telegram by itself is not an authenticated document and it has to be confirmed by a subsequent signed application, representation or an affidavit and the contents of the telegrams have no authenticity at all. Para 6
(C)Constitution of India-Art.21, 22-Preventive detention-Translated version-Crime number-Mistake-Prejudice-Unless the mistake in mentioning the crime number in the grounds of detention caused prejudice to the detenu, it would not be a valid ground to set aside the preventive detention.
In the English version of the grounds of detention the crime number has been wrongly mentioned inasmuch as instead of 553/2009 it was mentioned as 480/2009. As rightly submitted by the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor in the Tamil version, the language known to the detenu, the crime number has been clearly described. We have perused the representations sent by the petitioner. In the said representations sent by the petitioner to different authorities the crime numbers have been correctly described as 553/2009 and not 480/2009 and, therefore, the wrong description of the crime number has not caused any prejudice to the petitioner in making the effective representation. Hence, the aforesaid contention is also liable to be rejected. Para 15
(D)Constitution of India-Art.21, 22 -Preventive detention- Bail-Imminent possibility of release- Conclusion of the detaining authority regarding the imminent possibility of the detenu being released on bail should not be based on the mere ipse dixit of the detaining authority but should be based on materials on record.
Conclusion of the detaining authority regarding imminent possibility of being released on bail was based on materials and as such was not liable to be interfered with as conclusion of the detaining authority on the basis of materials on record regarding imminent possibility of coming out on bail should not be interfered with. At the same time, the Supreme Court emphasised that such conclusion should not be based on the mere ipse dixit of the detaining authority, but on the other hand should be based on materials on record. Para 26
(E)Constitution of India-Art.21, 22 -Preventive detention- Bail-Imminent possibility of release-The subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority regarding the imminent possibility of the detenu coming out on bail depends upon the facts of each case and no hard-and-fast rule can be applied.
The subjective satisfaction of the imminent possibility of coming out on bail depends upon the facts of each case and no hard-and-fast rule can be applied. Para 27
Elipe Dharma Rao, J.
The petitioner, wife of the detenu, has come forward with the present Habeas Corpus Petition to quash the order of detention passed by the second respondent in Memo No.7/Black Marketing Act/2009, dated 29. 2009, detaining the detenu Karthigai Rajan, S/o. Raja Nadar, as a Black Marketeer as contemplated under the provisions of the Prevention of Black Marketing and Maintenance of Supplies of Essential Commodities Act (hereinafter referred to as "the Act").
2. The detaining authority in the order of detention has referred to three adverse cases, on the basis of which the detaining authority has clamped the order of detention against the detenu. The three adverse cases were registered by Civil Supplies CID., Chennai Unit Cr.Nos.118/2006, 536/2006 and 551/2009 under Sections 6(4) of TNSC (RDCS) Order 1982 r/w.7(1)(a)(ii) of Essential Commodities Act, 1955. The facts leading to registration of the ground case is as follows :-
On 19. 2009, on the information received from an Informant that one unknown person has been arranging PDS rice bags in rows inside Redhills Bus Stand and he was about to smuggle such bags, the Inspector of Police, Civil Supplies, CID, Chennai City Unit, along with his party rushed to the spot and found Karthigai Rajan, (the detenu), who was arranging PDS rice bags in rows inside the Red Hills bus stand, after noticing the police trying to escape. However, when the police tried to apprehend, the detenu took out an iron rod and tried to assault the Head Constable by uttering that you would all be killed otherwise I could not run the business, but the Head Constable escaped from the said attack. The detenu was surrounded and apprehended and after examining him he was taken to the spot where he stored the rice intended for supply to the poor public under Public Distribution System (in short "PDS") and 55 bags each containing 50 kgs of PDS rice were seized in the presence of witnesses. A case in Civi Supplies, CID, Chennai City Cr.No.553 of 2009 under Sections 6(4) of T NSC (RDCS) Order 1982 r/2 7 (1)(a)(ii) of E.C. Act, 1955 and 403, 332 and 307 IPC., was registered. After observing all the formalities, the detenu was produced before the Judicial Magistrate Court-I, Thiruvallur and was lodged at Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai, as remand prisoner till 010. 2009.
3. In view of the above, the sponsoring authority has satisfied that the detenu is habitually purchasing ration rice at meagre cost and illegally storing and also transporting to other States with a view to get more pecuniary gain and as such he is a "Black-marketer", as contemplated under Section 3(1) of the Act and hence, sponsored the detenu before the Detaining Authority for passing an order of detention against him. The Detaining Authority, on consideration of the materials placed before him, passed the order of detention against the detenu. The said order is in challenge in the present Habeas Corpus Petition.
3. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondents and perused the materials produced before us.
4. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner has raised the following grounds :-
(1) The telegram sent on behalf of the detenu on 19. 2009 followed by a detailed representation dated 29. 2009 regarding illegal custody of the detenu by CSCID Chennai Unit on 19. 2009 at 4.00 P.M., were not considered by the detaining authority, which vitiates the order of detention.
(2) The representation dated 10. 2009 sent by the petitioner was not considered by the detaining authority.
(3) In para 4 of the grounds of detention, the detaining authority has averred that in imilar cases bails are granted, whereas no material has been placed to come to the aforesaid conclusion.
(4) In para 4 of the grounds of detention, the detaining authority has referred to the detenu coming out on bail in Cr.No.480/2009, whereas no case has been registered against the deten
SupremeToday
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
