High Court · 2006

In the High Court of Judicature at MadrasDated:21.09.2006Coram:The Hon'ble Mr. Justice P. SATHASIVAMandThe Hon'ble Mr. Justice S. MANIKUMARHabeas Corpus Petition No.728 of 2006---Vijayalakshmi .. Petitioner/Wife of the detenue.vs.1. The Secretary to Government Food, Co-operation and Consumer Protection Department Chennai 600 009.2. The District Collector and District Magistrate Theni District, Theni.3. The Secretary to the Government Food and Consumer Protection Department, Government of India New Delhi. .. Respondents Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of Indiapraying for issuance of writ of habeas corpus as stated therein (ie) tocall for the records in connection with the order of detention passed bythe 2nd respondent 18.7.2006 in detention order No.02/2006/CS against thepetitioner husband Ayyappan son of Sadayappa Pillai aged about 31 yearswho is confined at Central Prison, Madurai and set aside the same anddirect the respondents to produce the detenue before this Honourable Courtand set him at liberty.For petitioner : Mr. V. ParthibanFor respondents : Mr. M. Babu Muthu Meeran 1 to 2 Addl. Public Prosecutor Mr.P.Kumaresan, ACGSC for R.3 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ ORDER(Order of the Court was made by P. SATHASIVAM,J.)The petitioner Vijayalakshmi, wife of the detenu by nameAyyappan, who was detained as a "Black Marketeer" as contemplated underSection 3(2)(a) of the Prevention of Black Marketing and Maintenance ofSupplies of Essential Commodities Act, 1980, by the impugned detentionorder dated 18.07.2006, challenges the same in this Petition.2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Additional PublicProsecutor for the respondents 1 and 2 and Mr. P. Kumaresan, learnedAdditional Central Government Standing Counsel for the third respondent. 3. Mr. V. Parthiban, learned counsel for the petitioner at theforemost submitted that inasmuch as crime number available only at thetime of registering the First Information Report found a place in thedocument prepared much earlier, in the absence of clarification of thesaid vital error by the detaining authority, his ultimate detention orderis liable to be quashed. Elaborating the above argument, learned counselfor the petitioner has brought to our notice that the arrest memo, whichis available at page 44 of the paper book contains Crime No.388 of 2006and seizure mahazar, which is available at page 42 of the paper book alsocontains Crime No.388 of 2006. It is pointed out that the above documentswere allegedly prepared earlier to registering the case with crime number.In such circumstances, in the absence of clarification by the authorityconcerned about the vital error, the detention order is to be interferedwith. We verified both the documents as well as the time of arrest andpreparation of those documents. In the counter affidavit, particularly inpara 5, the District Collector, Theni / detaining authority has stated,"The crime number is ascertained over phone from the Unit at 07.15 hours.There is no prejudice is caused to the detenu in connection with the crimenumbers found in the documents and his fundamental right is not affectedin any manner." In view of the above explanation that the crime numberwas ascertained over phone at the time of preparation of arrest memo andseizure mahazar, the contention raised by the learned counsel for thepetitioner is liable to be rejected.4. The learned counsel for the petitioner by drawing our attention topage 64 of the paper book submitted that though the English version of theorder passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Uthamapalayam contains amaterial aspect, viz., if the detenu is enlarged on bail, he would commitsuch offence, the same does not find a place in the Tamil version of thesaid order, which is available at page 66 of the paper book. We verifiedthe order of the learned Magistrate dated 11.07.2006, both English andTamil versions. It is true that except one sentence in the firstparagraph all other portions have been correctly translated and suppliedto the detenu. First of all, it is not in dispute that it is an order https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ passed by the learned Magistrate granting him bail and based on the samehe was released on bail. In such circumstances, merely because there isomission of one sentence of the said order in the Tamil version, we are ofthe view that the detention order cannot be faulted with. Further, thedetenu has not shown any prejudice caused to him due to the same.Accordingly, we reject the said contention.5. Finally, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted thatthough in para 6 of the grounds of detention it is stated that the detenuAyyappan was arrested in connection with Uthamapalaym Civil Supplies CIDCrime No.388 of 2006, and he moved bail petition in Criminal M.P.No.5911of 2006 before the Judicial Magistrate, Uthamapalayam and he went on bailon 11.07.2006, the documents, such as furnishing security etc., were notplaced either before the detaining authority nor supplied to the detenu.We are unable to accept the said contention. It is not in dispute that onthe orders of the Judicial Magistrate, Uthamapalayam, the detenu wasreleased on bail on 11.07.2006. When such position is not disputed andthe detaining authority has considered all the relevant and requiredmaterials, merely because the documents, such as furnishing security andacceptance of the same by the Court are not relevant and relied on by thedetaining authority; hence the order of detention cannot be faulted with.At any rate, the reference made to the effect that the detenu came out onbail on 11.07.2006, is only a referred statement and no prejudice wasshown by the detenu, because of non-placement of said documents. In viewof the said factual details, we are of the view that the decision reliedon by the learned counsel for the petitioner, viz., 1994 (2) Law Weekly(Criminal) 618 (Irudhi @ Irudayanathan and another vs. State of Tamil Naduetc., and another), is not applicable to the case on hand. 6. Except the above grounds, no other ground has been raised beforeus.In the light of what is stated above, we do not find any error orinfirmity in the impugned order of detention and there is no valid groundfor interference. Hence, this petition fails and the same is dismissed.Sd/-Asst. Registrar./true copy/Sub Asst. Registrar.Kh https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ To1. The Secretary to Government Food, Co-operation and Consumer Protection Department Chennai 600 009.2. The District Collector and District Magistrate Theni District, Theni.3. The Secretary to the Government Food and Consumer Protection Department, Government of India New Delhi.4. The Superintendent, Central Prison, Madurai.5. The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras. H.C.P.No.728 of 2006Dt.21.09.2006tjl(co)gp/25.10.