IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS Dated:- 25.09.2006 Coram:- The Honble Mr. Justice P.SATHASIVAM and The Honble Mr. Justice S.TAMILVANAN Habeas Corpus Petition No.711 of 2006 Venkatapathi @ Venkat ... Petitioner Vs. 1.The Secretary to Government, Prohibition and Excise Department, Fort St. George, Chennai-9. 2.The District Magistrate and District Collector, Kancheepuram District, Kancheepuram. .. Respondents Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of a Writ of Habeas Corpus to call for the records in connection with the order of detention passed by the second respondent dated 11.12.2005 in memo.BDFGISV No.58/2006 against the petitioner Venkatapathi @ Venkat, son of Kandasamy, about 35 years, who is confined at Central Prison, Chennai and set aside the same and direct the respondents to produce the detenu before this Court and set him at liberty. For Petitioner : Miss.V.Vanitha For Respondents : Mr.M.Babu Muthu Meeran Addl. Public Prosecutor O R D E R
(Order of the Court was made by P.SATHASIVAM,J.)
The petitioner, by name Venkadapathi @ Venkat, who is detained as a ”Goonda” as contemplated under Section 3(1) of the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Forest Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders, Slum Grabbers and Video Pirates Act, 1982 (Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982), by the impugned detention order dated 11.12.2005, challenges the same in this Petition.
2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondents.
3. At the foremost, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in view of the defect in translation of various orders, the detention is liable to be quashed since the detenu was prevented from making an effective representation. In the light of the same, we have verified the relevant pages viz., 77, 79, 223, 223-A, 305 and 307. All those documents are orders of the Judicial Magistrate No.II, Chengleput. We also perused the translation orders, which are available at page Nos.77 and 79 of the booklet supplied to the detenu. The order of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Chengleput , which is in English is available at page 77 and it reads as follows:
“Accused not produced. Call on 28.11.2005.”
While translating the same, it is mentioned as follows:
“VERNACULAR TAMIL PORTION DELETED”
Though a reading of the Tamil translated version gives different meaning, the fact remains that in view of the fact that accused was not produced on 14.11.2005, the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Chengleput, merely adjourned the matter to 28.11.2005. The translation has been effected in the similar way in other pages also. As observed earlier, though the Tamil version are not properly translated, it is not difficult to arrive at a conclusion that on pointing out the absence of accused, the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Chengleput, adjourned the case to the next hearing date viz., 28.11.2005. In such circumstances, we are of the view that the detenu is no way prejudiced and it has not affected his right to make effective representation as claimed. Accordingly, we reject the said contention.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner, by drawing our attention to the details furnished in para 5 of the grounds of detention, has contended that the detaining authority, having found that in respect of adverse cases, the bail applications filed by the detenu were dismissed on 23.11.2005 and he has not moved any bail application in the ground case in Crime No.210/2005, was not justified in arriving at a conclusion that there is an imminent possibility of his coming out on bail by filing a bail application. According to the learned counsel, there is no material to arrive at such satisfaction and seek interference by this Court.
5. We have verified the averments in paragraph 5 of the grounds of detention. It is true that the detaining authority has noted that the bail applications filed in respect of adverse cases were dismissed on 23.11.2005. He also noted that the detenu has not moved any bail application in respect of ground case in Crime No.210/2005. Considering the various offences involved in two adverse cases and the ground case, as rightly pointed out by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, there is no bar in filing another bail application by the detenu and in that event according to him, there is every possibility of his coming out on bail and in such event, he will indulge in further activities, which would be prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. Inasmuch as, the detenu is free to move another application for bail, even after dismissal of the earlier petition and in that event considering the offences involved, there is possibility of bail being granted by the same Court or by the higher Court, the satisfaction arrived at by the detaining authority cannot be faulted with. This is also clear from the decision of the Apex Court reported in (2006) 3 SCC (Criminal) 50 (SENTHAMILSELVI VS. STATE OF TAMIL NADU AND ANOTHER). Accordingly, we reject the said contention also.
6. Finally, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that there is a delay in disposal of the representation of the detenu, which vitiates the ultimate order of detention. With reference to the above claim, learned Additional Public Prosecutor has placed the details, which show that the representation of the detenu dated 24.07.2006 was received by the Government on 25.07.2006 and the remarks were called for on 26.07.2006. The representation of the detenu was received from the Government by the Collectorate on 27.07.2006 and parawar remarks were called for from the Sponsoring authority on 28.07.2006 and the remarks were received from the sponsoring authority on 31.07.2006 and report was sent to the Government on the same day i.e. on 31.07.2006. In the mean time, the remarks were received by the Government on 02.08.2006 and the File was submitted on 03.08.2006 and the same was dealt with by the Under Secretary and the Deputy Secretary on 04.08.2006 and finally, the Minister for Prohibition and Excise passed orders on 08.08.2006. The rejection letter was prepared on 09.08.2006 and the same was sent to the detenu on the same day i.e. on 09.08.2006 and served to him on 10.08.2006. If we exclude the intervening holidays, we are of the view that there was no let up or undue delay at any stage in considering the representation of the detenu as claimed by the learned counsel for the petitioner. Accordingly, we reject the said contention also.
7. In the light of what is stated above, we do not find any valid ground for interference. Accordingly, the Habeas Corpus Petition fails and the same is dismissed.
raa
To
1. The Secretary to Government,
State of Tamil Nadu, Prohibition
and Excise Department,
Fort St. George, Chennai-600 009.
2. The District Magistrate and
District Collector,
Kancheepuram District.
3. The Superintendent,
Central Prison,
Chennai.
(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.
[VSANT 8143]