Abdul Majeed vs The Collector and District Magistrate, Ramanathapuram at Madurai, The State of Tamil Nadu and The Superintendent of Central Prison, Madurai.

In this writ petition the Petitioner has prayed for quashing the order of the detention dated 21st May, 1984 and directing the Respondents to set at liberty the detenu, one Balan alias Akbar, son of Muniyan of Ramanathapuram. He was detained by an order of detention, dated 21st May, 1984 by the Collector of Ramanathapuram on the ground that he is a bootlegger and it is necessary to make that order in order to prevent him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of the public order. In the grounds of detention, after mentioning that he was charged for an offence u/s 4(1) (i) of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act in Crime No. 323 of 1984 with reference to an incident on 20th April, 1984, which was the proximate cause for taking action, it is mentioned that he has come to an adverse notice in four other instances. The first instance is Crime Nos. 1223 and 1224 of 1979 and Section 4(1) (a) and 4(1) (i) of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act respectively dated 11th September, 1979. The action in this case was dropped as per G.O. Ms. No. 192 Home dated 24th January, 1980. The first ground of attack on the validity of the order of detention was that in view of the action taken in Crime Nos. 1223 and 1224 of 1979, which has been dropped as early as on 24th January, 1980, it could not form a ground for detention. It is also contended that this cannot be a ground for detention even otherwise, as that was long prior to the incidents mentioned in the other grounds on 30th March, 1984, 10th April, 1984 and 20th April, 1984. In one of the recent judgments reported in Vijay Narain Singh Vs. State of Bihar and Others, . the Supreme Court pointed out that the disposal of the earlier case in one way or the other, is a material fact, which will have to weigh with the detaining authorities. If the earlier instances had ended in an acquittal, it could not form a ground for detention.

The learned Public Prosecutor tried to distinguish this case on the ground that in the instant case he was not acquitted, but the Government had to drop the entire proceedings for some reason or other and that that cannot be interpreted as meaning that he had not either committed an offence or that he had been acquitted. We are unable to see how this line of argument is open to the learned Public Prosecutor. When once the proceedings initiated against him is dropped, it means as if no proceedings were initiated against him. We have, therefore, no doubt that the earlier instances had to be treated as never having taken place at all or in any case it has to be treated as ended in an acquittal, and not conviction. Whether the prosecution has withdrawn the proceedings or whether the prosecution was dropped, it has got the effect of wiping out the proceedings in its entirety and therefore, that cannot be a ground for detention. If the first instance referred to therein cannot, therefore, be a ground, the order of detention will be vitiated, as it is one of subjective satisfaction and we could not say with any amount of certainly how the grounds operated in the mind of the detaining authority.

Learned Counsel for the Petitioner also contended that the order is vitiated by an unreasonable and unconscionable delay and non-production of the representation of the detenu continuously and expeditiously. An additional counter affidavit has been filed in this case in which it was stated thus:

The Government received the representation of the detenu, dated 19th June, 1984 from the Superintendent, Central Prison, Madurai, on 21st June, 1984. The Government approved the draft letter calling for the parawar remarks of the Collector and District Magistrate of Ramanathapuram District thereon on 26th June, 1984. A copy of the representation of the detenu was sent to the Advisory Board in Government letter dated 22nd June, 1984. But, (sic,) before the said letter addressed to the Collector and District Magistrate was issued, his parawar remarks were received in Government on 23rd June, 1984, 24th June, 1984 was a public holiday (Sunday). The detenu''s representation was in English and it was translated into Tamil. The Government examined the representation with the parawar remarks of the Collector and District Magistrate of Ramanathapuram District. The connected file was submitted to the Under Secretary to Government by the section on 29th June, 1884, The Under Secretary and Deputy Secretary passed the file on 29th June, 1984. The Minister for Law and Industries passed the file on 30th June, 1984. 1st July, 1984 was a public holiday (Ramzan and Sunday). The file was circulated to Chief Minister on 2nd July, 1984. The Chief Minister attended throughout day the Cabinet Meetings on 3, 4, and 6th July, 1984. From 7th July. 1984 to 10th July, 1984 he was preoccupied with some very urgent matters. Afterwards, he went to New Delhi on 11th July, 1984 and he was in New Delhi from 11th July, 1984 to 13th July, 1984 attending N.D.C. Meeting. He returned from New Delhi on 14th July, 1984. The Chief Minister passed orders in the file on 15th July, 1984, and then the representation of the detenu was rejected in Government Letter dated 15th July, 1984. The rejection order was served to the detenu by the Superintendent, Central Prison, Madurai on 21st July. 1984 and his acknowledgement therefore has been obtained.

Though something may be said on this ground of attack we do not want to rest our judgment on this ground, since we have already held that the first ground could not have been relied on and on that ground the order is vitiated.

The writ petition is accordingly allowed. The order of detention is set aside and the Respondents are directed to set the detenu at liberty forthwith.