IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Dated: 25/07/2005
Coram
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice P.SATHASIVAM
and
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice AR.RAMALINGAM
H.C.P. No.381 of 2005
Palanisamy ... Petitioner
-Vs-
1. District Collector
and District Magistrate,
Coimbatore District,
Coimbatore.
2. The Secretary to the Government
of Tamil Nadu
Prohibition and Excise Department,
Fort St. George,
Chennai-600 009. ... Respondents
Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the
issuance of Writ of Habeas Corpus to call for the records in
Cr.M.P.No.03/B.L/2005/E4 on the file of the first respondent, quash the
detention order dated 4.2.2005 and direct the production of the detenu Subban,
son of Thannasi, presently detained at the Central Prison, Coimbatore, under
the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982 before this Honourable Court and set him at
liberty.
!For Petitioner : Mr.A.M.Rahamath Ali
^For Respondents : Mr.V.Arul,
Govt. Advocate (Crl. Side)
:O R D E R
(Order of the Court was made by P.SATHASIVAM, J.)
The petitioner is the son of the detenu by name Subban. He challenges
the impugned proceedings dated 04.02.2005, branding the detenu as ‘Bootlegger’
as contemplated under the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of
Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Forest Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic
Offenders, Slum Grabbers and Video Pirates Act, 1982.
2. After taking us through the grounds of detention and all other
connected materials, learned counsel for the petitioner has raised the
following contentions:-
(a) There is inordinate delay in communicating the rejection
letter to the detenu, which vitiates the ultimate order of detention.
(b) Copy of the special requisition made by the Sponsoring
Authority to the Court for sending the samples to the Laboratory has not been
furnished to the detenu.
(c) Though the detenu was served with copy of the orders
passed in four adverse cases, in spite of the request made by the detenu,
copies of all the materials connected to those cases were not furnished to
him.
(d) In view of the discrepancy at page No.33 of the Booklet
supplied to the detenu, the detention order is liable to be quashed.
3. Coming to the first contention regarding delay, the particulars
furnished by the learned Government Advocate show that the representation of
the detenu was received by the Government on 05.04.2005, remarks were called
for on 06.04.2005 and the same were received on 12.04.2005. The File was
dealt with by the Deputy Secretary on 13.04.2005 and finally, the Minister for
Prohibition and Excise passed orders on 15.04.2005. Rejection letter was
prepared on 18.04.2005. The said letter was sent to the detenu on 19.04.2005
and served to the detenu on 23.04.2005. Learned counsel for the petitioner
mainly relied on the delay between 19.04.2005 and 23.04.2005. It is brought
to our notice that the rejection order was passed by the competent authority
at Chennai and after preparation of the rejection letter, the same was sent to
the detenu, who was detained in the Central Prison at Coimbatore, due to
which, the same was served only on 23.04.2005. It is also brought to our
notice that 22.04.2005 being a Holiday, if we exclude the said date, it cannot
be said that there is enormous delay as claimed by the petitioner. On going
through the materials, we hold that it cannot be claimed that there was undue
delay on the part of the authorities in disposal of the representation of the
detenu.
4. Coming to the second contention, namely, copy of the special
requisition made by the Sponsoring Authority to the Judicial Magistrate,
Mettupalayam, for sending the samples to the Laboratory for chemical analysis,
has not been supplied to the detenu, it is the argument of the learned
Government Advocate that it is only a referred to document and not a relied
upon document, for which, the detenu is entitled to a copy of the same.
Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, by drawing our attention to the
decision rendered in HCP No.173 of 200 5, dated 18.03.2005, would submit that
in the absence of supply of copy of the said document, the detention order is
liable to be quashed. We have gone through the factual position in that case
and the decision rendered therein. Though a reference has been made in
paragraph No.3(c) of the grounds of detention regarding the requisition to the
Judicial Magistrate, Mettupalayam, for sending the samples to the Laboratory
for chemical analysis, we are of the view that the document, viz., special
requisition, cannot be a relied upon document as claimed by the learned
counsel for the petitioner. It is also not in dispute that the detenu is
entitled to a copy only with regard to a relied upon document and in the case
of a referred to document, unless the detenu shows/establishes that prejudice
has been caused to him due to non-supply of such referred to document, there
is no need to supply the same. On going through the said paragraph in the
grounds of detention, namely, 3(c), taking note of the claim of the
respondents that it is only a referred to document, and in the absence of any
prejudice shown, we are unable to accept the contention of the learned counsel
for the petitioner. The decision relied on by the learned counsel for the
petitioner is not applicable to the case on hand.
5. Coming to the third contention, it is not in dispute that all the
four adverse cases referred to in the grounds of dentition ended in conviction
and the detenu was set off taking note of his period in prison. It is also
not in dispute that the detenu was served with copies of the F.I.R., calendar
extract etc. and the ultimate order passed by the learned Judicial
Magistrate, Mettupalayam. Learned Government Advocate has brought to our
notice the confession statement of the accused, wherein, he has admitted his
involvement in other cases prior to the adverse cases. In such circumstances,
we are of the view that the claim made by the petitioner cannot be accepted.
6. Coming to the last contention, namely, discrepancy in the FIR
dated 14.01.2005, we verified the same. It is seen that when the Sub
Inspector of Police was in the Police Station, at about 13.00 Hours, on
14.01.2005, the complainant by name Pathirappan made a written complaint,
which was addressed to the Inspector of Police for taking necessary action.
Accordingly, we find no discrepancy as claimed by the petitioner. To put it
clear, though the complaint was addressed to the Inspector of Police for
necessary action, the same was handed over in the Police Station to the Sub
Inspector of Police, who was there at 1 P.M. on 14.01.2005. We are satisfied
that there is no discrepancy which goes to the root of the matter as claimed.
7. In these circumstances, we do not find any valid ground for
interference. H.C.P. fails and the same is dismissed.
JI.
To
1. The District Collector, Coimbatore District.
2. Secretary to Government, Prohibition and Excise Department, Fort St.
George, Chennai 600 009.
3. The Superintendent, Central Prison, Coimbatore.
(In duplicate for communication to detenu)
4. The Joint Secretary to Government, Public (Law and Order)
Fort St. George, Chennai-9.
5. The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.