Back
2010 Supreme(Mad) 4605
High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M. CHOCKALINGAM & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.S. KARNAN
Arulmozhi
Versus
The State of Tamilnadu & Another
H.C.P.No.979 of 2010
Decided On : 25-10-2010
For the Petitioner:M. Sankar, Advocate.
For the Respondents: Babu Muthu Meeran, Additional Public Prosecutor.
Discrepancies in the grounds of detention and lack of basis for the authority's observation on the possibility of the detenu coming out on bail led to the setting aside of the detention order.
Headnote:
Detention - Prevention of Black Marketing and Maintenance of Supplies of Essential Commodities Act 1980 - The court set aside the detention order due to discrepancies in the grounds of detention and lack of basis for the authority's observation on the possibility of the detenu coming out on bail.
Fact of the Case:
The petition challenges an order of detention made under the Prevention of Black Marketing and Maintenance of Supplies of Essential Commodities Act 1980, based on the detenu's activities prejudicial to the maintenance of essential commodity supplies.
Finding of the Court:
The court found discrepancies in the grounds of detention and lack of basis for the authority's observation on the possibility of the detenu coming out on bail, leading to the setting aside of the detention order.
Issues: Discrepancies in the grounds of detention, lack of basis for the authority's observation on the possibility of the detenu coming out on bail.
Ratio Decidendi: The detention order was set aside due to discrepancies in the grounds of detention and lack of basis for the authority's observation on the possibility of the detenu coming out on bail.
Final Decision: The habeas corpus petition is allowed, setting aside the detention order and directing the detenu to be set at liberty forthwith unless his custody is required in connection with any other case.
(Order of the Court was made by M.CHOCKALINGAM, J.)
1. This petition challenges an order of detention made by the second respondent dated 3.5.2010, whereby the husband of the petitioner by name Kamaraj was ordered to be detained under the provisions of the Prevention of Black Marketing and Maintenance of Supplies of Essential Commodities Act 1980, after recording that his activities were prejudicial to the maintenance of supplies of commodities essential to the community.
2. The Court looked into all the materials available and in particular, the order under challenge, along with the grounds of detention and heard the learned Counsel fort he petitioner.
3. It is not in controversy that pursuant to the recommendations made by the sponsoring authority that the detenu is involved in three adverse cases namely (1) Salem Civil Supplies Criminal Investigation Department Crime No.89/2009 under Sec.6(4) of TNSC (RDCS) Order 1982 read with 7(1)(a)(ii) of Essential Commodities Act 1955; (2) Salem Civil Supplies Criminal Investigation Department Crime No.443/2009 under Sec.6(4) of TNSC (RDCS) Order 1982 read with 7(1)(a)(ii) of Essential Commodities Act 1955 and (3) Salem City Annathanapatti Police Station Crime No.255/2010 under Sec.6(4) of TNSC (RDCS) Order 1982 read with 7(1)(a)(ii) of Essential Commodities Act 1955, and also in a ground case registered by Salem Civil Supplies Criminal Investigation Department in Crime No.268/2010 under Sec.6(4) of TNSC (RDCS) Order 1982 read with 7(1)(a)(ii) of Essential Commodities Act 1955 for an occurrence that took place on 21.4.2010 when he was found in possession of 40 bags of PDS rice each containing 50 Kg., the detaining authority after scrutiny of the entire materials and recording the subjective satisfaction that the activities of the detenu were prejudicial to the supplies of commodities essential to the community, has made the order under challenge.
4. Advancing arguments on behalf of the petitioner, the learned Counsel submitted that the detenu made an application for bail in Crl.M.P.No.2197/2010 in Crime No.268/2010 before the Judicial Magistrate No.II, Salem, and the same came up for consideration on 3.5.2010, and was also dismissed; that the authority has also passed the order on the very day; that it is pertinent to note that on the day when the order came to be passed, no further bail application was pending; and that in such circumstances, the observation made by the detaining authority that there was a real possibility of his coming out on bail, was thoroughly baseless, unfounded and without any material, much less cogent material.
5. Added further the learned Counsel that as far as the third adverse case is concerned, the crime number is actually 255/2010, but in the grounds of detention, it is mentioned as Crime No.255/2009; and that in such circumstances, a clarification should have been called for, but not so.
6. The learned Counsel pointing to both English and Tamil versions of the grounds of detention, would contend that in page No.4 at the end of the first paragraph, it is found that the entire contraband which was recovered, was sent for analysis, and it was actually affirmed that the rice which was in the possession of the detenu and recovered, was actually meant for public distribution system as per the analysts report; that this material is not found in the English version, and hence an explanation should have been called for, but not done so, and hence the order has got to be set aside.
7. The Court heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor on all the above contentions and paid its anxious consideration on the submissions made.
8. As far as the ground case in Crime No.268/2010 is concerned, the detenu moved a bail application before the Judicial Magistrate No.II, Salem, and the same has also been dismissed on 3.5.2010. The detaining authority has passed the order under challenge on 3.5.2010. It is pertinent to point out that on the day when the im
