D. Sivagami.. PetitionerSalem - 4 v. The State of Tamil Nadu

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATRE AT MADRASDATED:21.03.2006CORAM:THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P. SATHASIVAMANDTHE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.A.K. SAMPATHKUMARH.C.P.No.165 of 2006D. Sivagami.. PetitionerSalem - 4.vs.

The State of Tamil Nadu rep. by its Secretary to Government Co.operation, Food and Consumer Protection E-1 Department Fort St. George, Chennai 9.

The District Collector & District Magistrate Salem District Salem... RespondentsPetition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a writ of Habeas corpus as stated therein. directing the respondentsto produce the body of the detenue Durai @ Duraisamy who isdetained in the Central Prison, Salem before this Court andpass such other order or orders and call for the records ofdetention order imposed upon the detenue in CMP NO.3/P.B.M.S.E.C. Act/J3/2005, dated 26.12.2005 passed by thesecond respondent and set aside the same and set thedetenue of libertyFor petitioner : Mr. V. PadmanabanFor respondents: Mr. Abudukumar Rajarathinam Govt. Advocate (Crl.side)ORDER(ORDER of the Court was made by P.SATHASIVAM,J.)The petitioner by name Sivagami, wife of the detenuDurai @ Duraisamy, who was detained as a "Black Marketer"under Section 3 (2) (a) read with 3 (1) of the Preventionof Black Marketing and Maintenance of Supplies of EssentialCommodities Act, 1980, by the impugned proceedings dated26.12.2005, challenges the order of detention in thispetition. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

2. Heard both sides.

The learned counsel appearing for the petitionerafter taking us through the grounds of detention and allother materials filed in the form of booklet, contendedthat the certificate issued by the Quality Control Officer, which is available at pages 54 and 55 of the paper book, isnot a valid certificate and the detention order passedrelying on the said document cannot be sustained. In otherwords, according to the learned counsel, there is no legalevidence/material to sustain the order of detention.

As against the said contention, learned GovernmentAdvocate, by placing before us the proceedings in originalincluding the certificate issued by the Quality ControlOfficer, would contend that after proper analysis of therice seized from the detenu, the Officer concerned, viz.,Assistant Quality Inspector and Assistant Manager (Q&C)arrived at a conclusion that the rice seized is meant fordistribution under Public Distribution System and issuedsuch a certificate. The original certificate produced bythe learned Government Advocate also contains thesignatures of both the Officers. He further contended thatin the confession statement, which is available at page 37of the paper book, the detenu himself has admitted that therice in his possession was purchased by him from variouspersons, who had secured the same from the ration shops(PDS). In the confession statement he also admitted thatafter purchasing the rice from those persons, he used tosell at higher price. By placing reliance on thecertificate of the Quality Control Officer and theconfession statement as well as the provisions of the TamilNadu Scheduled Commodities (Regulation of Distribution by Card System) Order, 1982, learned Government Advocatecontended that the detaining authority is fully justifiedin passing the impugned order; accordingly, he prayed fordismissal of the above petition.

We have carefully considered the rival contentionsand perused the relevant materials.

Inasmuch as the learned counsel for the petitionervehemently contended that the Quality Certificate issued bythe Regional Laboratory, Tamil Nadu Civil SuppliesCorporation is not a legal document/evidence, we verifiedthe said document. A perusal of the original qualitycertificate shows that after examining the rice seized fromthe detenu and after conducting various tests, theauthority concerned arrived at a conclusion that it belongsto PDS rice. After arriving at such a conclusion, Assistant Quality Inspector and Assistant Manager (Q&C),who verified, ascertained and concluded as to the qualityof the rice, have signed the said certificate. No doubt, it is the grievance of the petitioner that the copy servedon the detenu does not contain the signature of any one ofthe Officers as found in original certificate. As rightly https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ pointed out, the copy supplied to the detenu is a cleantyped copy, duly certified as true copy of the same by thesponsoring authority. On going through the copies suppliedto the detenu which are available in the paper book as wellas the originals available in the file and in the light ofthe explanation offered, we are unable to accept thecontention of the learned counsel for the petitioner.

The perusal of grounds of detention makes it clearthat on 20.12.2005 at about 10 p.m. when the Sub Inspectorof Police, Civil Supplies CID, Salem and his party alongwith the flying squad staff of the Revenue Department wereconducting vehicular checking in front of MohanKumaramangalam Medical College, Steel Plant Road, Salem, they intercepted a lorry bearing registration No.TNC 6912plying from Tharamangalam to Salem and found that 120 bagsof rice meant for distribution through the PublicDistribution System were smuggled. The rice bags wereseized and the lorry driver Raja and one Durai @ Duraisamywere arrested. They were informed about the reason for thearrest. Later, 120 bags of rice and the lorry bearingregistration No.TNC 6912 were seized from Durai and Raja inthe presence of witnesses and a case in Salem CivilSupplies C.I.D. Cr.No.820/2005 under Section 6(4) TNSC(RDCS) Order, 1982 r/w.7(1)(a)(ii) of Essential CommoditiesAct, 1955 was registered against the detenu viz., Durai @Duraisamy and Raja and both of them were produced beforethe Judicial Magistrate No.I, Salem and remanded tojudicial custody at the Central Prison, Salem.