IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 25-10-2010 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.CHOCKALINGAM AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.KARNAN H.C.P.No.1022 of 2010 S.Kalpana .. Petitioner vs 1.The Secretary to Government Food and Consumer Protection Department Chennai 600 009. 2.The Commissioner of Police Chennai City Sub-Urban Area Chennai 16. 3.The Secretary to the Government of India Food and Consumer Protection Department Government of India New Delhi .. Respondents Habeas corpus petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a writ of habeas corpus calling for the records in connection with the order of detention passed by the second respondent dated 3.5.2010 in Memo No.4/Black Marketing Act/2010 against the petitioner's husband Madurai Sampath @ Sampath, son of Muthukrishnan aged about 44 years who is confined at Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai and set aside the same and direct the respondents to produce the detenu before this Court and set him at liberty. For Petitioner : Mr.V.Paarthiban For Respondents : Mr.Babu Muthu Meeran Additional Public Prosecutor for RR1 & 2 Mr.K.Ramakrisna Reddy SCGC for R3 ORDER
(Order of the Court was made by M.CHOCKALINGAM, J.)
This petition challenges an order of detention made by the second respondent dated 3.5.2010, whereby the husband of the petitioner by name Madurai Sampath @ Sampath was ordered to be detained under the provisions of the Prevention of Black Marketing and Maintenance of Supplies of Essential Commodities Act 1980, branding him as a Black Marketeer.
2.The Court heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and also looked into all the materials available and in particular, the order under challenge along with the grounds of detention.
3.It is not in controversy that pursuant to the recommendations made by the sponsoring authority that the detenu was involved in four adverse cases namely (1) Civil Supplies, CID, Chennai Unit, Crime No.482/2009 under Sec.6(4) of TNSC (RDCS) Order 1982 read with 7(i)(a)(ii) of Essential Commodities Act 1955; (2) Civil Supplies, CID, Chennai Unit, Crime No.543/2009 under Sec.6(4) of TNSC (RDCS) Order 1982 read with 7(i)(a)(ii) of Essential Commodities Act 1955; (3) Civil Supplies, CID, Chennai Unit, Crime No.210/2010 under Sec.6(4) of TNSC (RDCS) Order 1982 read with 7(i)(a)(ii) of Essential Commodities Act 1955 and (4) Civil Supplies, CID, Chennai Unit, Crime No.212/2010 under Sec.6(4) of TNSC (RDCS) Order 1982 read with 7(i)(a)(ii) of Essential Commodities Act 1955 and also in a ground case registered by Civil Supplies, CID, Chennai Unit in Crime No.214/2010 under Sec.6(4) of TNSC (RDCS) Order 1982 read with 7(i)(a)(ii) of Essential Commodities Act 1955 and Sections 403, 353 and 307 IPC for an occurrence that took place on 13.4.2010, when he was found in possession of 50 bags of PDS rice each containing 50 Kgs., the detaining authority after scrutiny of the entire materials and recording the subjective satisfaction that the activities of the detenu were prejudicial to the supplies of commodities essential to the community, has made the order under challenge.
4.It is urged by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the detenu has not moved for bail either in the third adverse case or in the fourth adverse case or in the ground case; that he was actually shown arrest on 13.4.2010, in all the above three cases; that apart from that, though in respect of the third and fourth adverse cases, remand order was actually made, it was not reflected in the grounds of detention; but the authority has stated that there was a real possibility of the detenu coming out on bail and indulging in such activities; and that this observation made by the detaining authority was actually without any basis or material, much less cogent material.
5.Added further the learned Counsel that the special report as found in page No.111, did not contain the date; that apart from that, as far as the remand extension was concerned, in the ground case, it was actually made till 11.5.2010 as found in the English version at page 105; but in the Tamil version as found in page 106, it is found as till 27.4.2010, and thus a discrepancy is found which was misleading; that under the circumstances, no effective representation could be made by the detenu, and hence on these grounds, the order has got to be set aside.
6.The Court heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State and the learned Counsel for the third respondent on all the above contentions and paid its anxious consideration on the submissions made.
7.As far as the first ground is concerned, the detaining authority has stated in paragraph 4 of the grounds of detention that the detenu has not moved any bail application in the ground case in Crime No.214/2010. That apart, he was actually shown arrested on 13.4.2010, in the third and fourth adverse cases and in the ground case. But the remand order that was actually made in respect of the third and fourth adverse cases, was not reflected in the impugned order. In such circumstances, the observation made by the authority that there was a real possibility of the detenu coming out on bail was thoroughly baseless and without any foundation or material, much less cogent material, which the law would require. Hence the order under challenge has become infirm.
8.As regards the second ground, it is pertinent to point out that the special report as found in page 111 of the booklet, did not contain the date. In such circumstances, the detenu was not able to know when it was made.
9.Insofar as the third ground, as could be seen from the English version at page 105, the remand extension was actually made till 11.5.2010. But, the Tamil version at page 106 would indicate that it was extended till 27.4.2010. In such circumstances, as rightly contended by the learned Counsel, the detenu could not make effective representation. The above grounds, in the considered opinion of the Court, would make the order infirm.
10.In the result, this habeas corpus petition is allowed setting aside the order of the second respondent. The detenu is directed to be set at liberty forthwith unless his custody is required in connection with any other case.
(M.C.,J.) (C.S.K.,J.)
25-10-2010
Index: yes
Internet: yes
nsv
To:
1.The Secretary to Government
Food and Consumer Protection
Department
Chennai 600 009.
2.The Commissioner of Police
Chennai City Sub-Urban Area
Chennai 16.
3.The Secretary to the Government
of India
Food and Consumer Protection
Department
Government of India
New Delhi
4.The Public Prosecutor
High Court, Madras
M.CHOCKALINGAM, J.
AND
C.S.KARNAN, J.
nsv
HCP No.1022 of 2010
Dt: 25-10-2010
Dt: 25-10-2010
