Arulmozhi v. The State of Tamilnadu

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED : 25-10-2010CORAMTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.CHOCKALINGAMANDTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.KARNANH.C.P.No.979 of 2010Arulmozhi.. Petitioner vs1.The State of Tamilnadu rep. by its Secretary to Government Cooperation, Food and ConsumerProtection Department Secretariat Chennai 9.2.The District Magistrate andDistrict Collector Salem District Salem .. RespondentsHabeas corpus petition filed under Article 226 of theConstitution of India praying for a writ of habeas corpus calling forthe entire records culminating in passing of the order of detention ofthe petitioner's husband by name Kamaraj, S/o. Sidhan, aged about 35years, under the Prevention of Black Marketing and Maintenance ofSupplies of Essential Commodities Act 1980, vide detention order inCMP No.10/PBMMSEC Act/2010(J3) dated 3.5.2010 on the file of thesecond respondent herein and quash the same as illegal andconsequently direct the respondent herein to produce the body andperson of the detenu Kamaraj, S/o. Sidhan from the Central Prison,Salem, before this Court and thereafter set him at liberty.For Petitioner: Mr.M.SankarFor Respondents: Mr.Babu Muthu Meeran Additional PublicProsecutor ORDER(Order of the Court was made by M.CHOCKALINGAM, J.)This petition challenges an order of detention made by the secondrespondent dated 3.5.2010, whereby the husband of the petitioner byname Kamaraj was ordered to be detained under the provisions of thePrevention of Black Marketing and Maintenance of Supplies of EssentialCommodities Act 1980, after recording that his activities were https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ prejudicial to the maintenance of supplies of commodities essential tothe community. 2.The Court looked into all the materials available and inparticular, the order under challenge, along with the grounds ofdetention and heard the learned Counsel fort he petitioner.3.It is not in controversy that pursuant to the recommendationsmade by the sponsoring authority that the detenu is involved in threeadverse cases namely (1) Salem Civil Supplies Criminal InvestigationDepartment Crime No.89/2009 under Sec.6(4) of TNSC (RDCS) Order 1982read with 7(1)(a)(ii) of Essential Commodities Act 1955; (2) SalemCivil Supplies Criminal Investigation Department Crime No.443/2009under Sec.6(4) of TNSC (RDCS) Order 1982 read with 7(1)(a)(ii) ofEssential Commodities Act 1955 and (3) Salem City AnnathanapattiPolice Station Crime No.255/2010 under Sec.6(4) of TNSC (RDCS) Order1982 read with 7(1)(a)(ii) of Essential Commodities Act 1955, and alsoin a ground case registered by Salem Civil Supplies CriminalInvestigation Department in Crime No.268/2010 under Sec.6(4) of TNSC(RDCS) Order 1982 read with 7(1)(a)(ii) of Essential Commodities Act1955 for an occurrence that took place on 21.4.2010 when he was foundin possession of 40 bags of PDS rice each containing 50 Kg., thedetaining authority after scrutiny of the entire materials andrecording the subjective satisfaction that the activities of thedetenu were prejudicial to the supplies of commodities essential tothe community, has made the order under challenge. 4.Advancing arguments on behalf of the petitioner, the learnedCounsel submitted that the detenu made an application for bail inCrl.M.P.No.2197/2010 in Crime No.268/2010 before the JudicialMagistrate No.II, Salem, and the same came up for consideration on3.5.2010, and was also dismissed; that the authority has also passedthe order on the very day; that it is pertinent to note that on theday when the order came to be passed, no further bail application waspending; and that in such circumstances, the observation made by thedetaining authority that there was a real possibility of his comingout on bail, was thoroughly baseless, unfounded and without anymaterial, much less cogent material.5.Added further the learned Counsel that as far as the thirdadverse case is concerned, the crime number is actually 255/2010, butin the grounds of detention, it is mentioned as Crime No.255/2009; andthat in such circumstances, a clarification should have been calledfor, but not so.6.The learned Counsel pointing to both English and Tamil versionsof the grounds of detention, would contend that in page No.4 at theend of the first paragraph, it is found that the entire contrabandwhich was recovered, was sent for analysis, and it was actuallyaffirmed that the rice which was in the possession of the detenu andrecovered, was actually meant for public distribution system as perthe analyst's report; that this material is not found in the Englishversion, and hence an explanation should have been called for, but notdone so, and hence the order has got to be set aside. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

7.The Court heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor on allthe above contentions and paid its anxious consideration on thesubmissions made.8.As far as the ground case in Crime No.268/2010 is concerned,the detenu moved a bail application before the Judicial MagistrateNo.II, Salem, and the same has also been dismissed on 3.5.2010. Thedetaining authority has passed the order under challenge on 3.5.2010.It is pertinent to point out that on the day when the impugned ordercame to be passed, no bail application was pending before any Court ofcriminal law. But, the authority has stated that there was a realpossibility of the detenu coming out on bail. This observation iswithout any basis or material, much less cogent material, which thelaw would require. In such circumstances, the order has becomedefective. 9.As regards the third adverse case, actually the crime numberassigned, is 255/2010. But, it is mentioned in the grounds ofdetention as Crime No.255/2009. In such circumstances, the detainingauthority should have called for a clarification, but not done so.10.Above all, in the translated Tamil version of the grounds ofdetention, it is found that the contraband which was recovered, wassent for analysis, and as per the analyst's report, the rice which wasfound in the possession of the detenu and recovered, was actuallymeant for Public Distribution System. It remains to be stated thatthe above material is not found in the English version. In suchcircumstances, the detaining authority should have called for anexplanation, but failed. For the above reasons, this Court is of theconsidered opinion that the order has got to be set aside.11.In the result, this habeas corpus petition is allowed settingaside the order of the second respondent. The detenu is directed tobe set at liberty forthwith unless his custody is required inconnection with any other case.Sd/Asst.Registrar/true copy/Sub Asst.RegistrarnsvTo:1.The Secretary to Government Cooperation, Food and ConsumerProtection Department Secretariat Chennai 9. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

2.The District Magistrate andDistrict Collector Salem District Salem3.The Public Prosecutor High Court, Madras4.The Superintendent, Central Prison, Salem.5.The Joint Secretary to Govt.Public(Law & Order) Department,Fort St.George, Chennai-9.LA(CO)km/3.11.HCP No.979 of 2010