IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Dated: 19/09/2003
Coram
The Honourable Mr. Justice V.S. SIRPURKAR
and
The Honourable Mr. Justice AR. RAMALINGAM
H.C.P. No.2576 OF 2002
Chandran
(lodged in Central Prison, Vellore
T.P.D.A. No.4235) ... Petitioner
-Vs-
1. The District Magistrate and
District Collector
Thiruvannamalai District at
Thiruvannamalai
2. State of Tamil Nadu, rep. by
the Secretary to Government
Prohibition and Excise Department
St. George Fort
Madras ... Respondents
Petition under Art.226 of the Constitution, praying for a
Writ of Habeas Corpus as stated in the petition
For Petitioner :: Mr. T.R. Radhakrishnan
For Respondents :: Mr. A. Navaneethakrishnan
Addl. Public Prosecutor
:ORDER
(Order of the Court was made by V.S. SIRPURKAR, J.)
The order dated 15-10-2002, passed by the District Magistrate
and District Collector, Thiruvannamalai District at Thiruvannamalai, dubbing
one Chandran, son of Kannan, as bootlegger and directing his detention under
Sec.3(1) of the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982, is in challenge in this writ
petition.
2. The detenu herein is involved in as many as four adverse
cases under the Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act, two of which have been committed
in 2001 and the other two in 2002. He was also caught while selling poisonous
liquor, mixed with atropine, on 30-9-2002 and it is on that basis that Crime
No.485 of 2002 was registered against him under the relevant provisions of the
Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act.
3. The first contention of Shri Radhakrishnan, learned
counsel for the petitioner, is that the pre-detention representation made by
the detenus wife Bogavathy has not been considered by the detaining authority
and that representation has also not been referred to.
3.1. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor, however, points out that
that representation was rejected and, therefore, there was no question of
again considering the same in the grounds or in the detention order.
3.2. The contention of the learned Public Prosecutor is absolutely
correct. The first contention is, therefore, rejected.
4. Secondly the learned counsel for the petitioner points out
that the representation dated 23-11-2002 has not been considered
expeditiously.
4.1. By way of reply, learned Additional Public Prosecutor files a
list of dates which suggests that the representation, which was received by
the Government on 25th November, 2002 and the very next day remarks were
called for. As many as three days were taken by the Sponsoring Authority and
the Detaining Authority to finalise those remarks. Besides, between 28th
November and 9th December, there were four holidays. Ultimately, these
remarks were received by the Government on 9th December and on the very next
day, they were worked upon by the Under Secretary and the Deputy Secretary and
the Honble Minister saw them on 12th December and rejected them on 16th. In
between these dates also, there were two holidays. Ultimtely, the intimation
of the rejection of the representation was given on 19th itself. The second
contention is, therefore, rejected.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner then invited out
attention at the grounds and more particularly the portion in paragraph (e)
where it is stated that the Doctor had suggested that the symptoms experienced
by Sekar are usually seen in cases like poisoning with atropine and he has
further stated that if a person consumed the arrack mixed with atropine (fatal
dose) a dose of 6.0 mgms per 100 ml. it may even cause death depending upon
the quantity of such arrack consumed with reference to the individuals
physical capacity and constitution. Learned counsel says that at page 21 in
the Doctors statement, this is not to be seen.
5.1. We have gone through the statement carefully and find that the
conclusion drawn by the detaining authority and the report of the Doctors
statement is also covered by the said statement. The complaint that there is
nothing is also incorrect.
6. Learned counsel then pointed out that the portion of pages
12 and 25 of the paper-book are in English and their Tamil versions were not
supplied to the detenu at all though the detenu specifically asked for. The
document at page 12, which is in English, is a warrant form, which is not a
relied upon document. What was relied upon was the order by the Magistrate
ordering the remand. Therefore, even if the document is in English and its
translation was not supplied, it cannot bring any cloud on the detention.
Same is the situation in respect of the document at Page 25. They are the
receipts for the fine paid by the detenu in his earlier convictions. It is
trite law that these documents, which are in prescribed form, would not be
required to be translated and supplied to the detenu. Again, these receipts
of the fine paid cannot be said to be and are really not the relied upon
documents. They are merely referred to documents in the statement while
stating the convictions against the detenu. Therefore, there would be no
prejudice caused by non-supply. This contention is also rejected.
7. Lastly, learned counsel for the petitioner says that the
intimation to him regarding the sitting of the Advisory Board was given to him
only on 31-10-2002 at about 4.00 p.m. and the sitting took place on
5-11-2002. He says that he could not have intimated his kith and kin to
remain present or to represent on his behalf before the Advisory Board.
Learned counsel says that this would be a short intimation particularly in
view of the fact that the next day was Friday and there was no possibility of
his meeting of the relatives because the visit-days are only Tuesday and
Thursday.
7.1. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor points out that the detenu
could have given the intimation by post. This is besides the fact that the
detenu has not sought for any adjournment before the Advisory Board though the
Advisory Board specifically asked about it. Under the circumstances, there
will be no question of the detenu suffering any prejudice on account of the
alleged short notice of five days. In our opinion, the notice of five days
was sufficient enough during which time, the petitioner could have prepared.
8. No other point was urged by the learned counsel for the
petitioner.
9. In short, we find that the writ petition is devoid of
merits. It is dismissed.
Internet : Yes
Jai
To:
1. The District Magistrate and
District Collector
Thiruvannamalai District at
Thiruvannamalai
2. State of Tamil Nadu, rep. by
the Secretary to Government
Prohibition and Excise Department
St. George Fort
Madras
3. The Public Prosecutor
High Court
Madras