Babu @ Vellei Babu @ Babu Reddy vs The State of Tamil Nadu and Another

Arunachalam, J.—Petitioner Babu @ Vellai Babu @ Babu Reddy has been detained as a goonda under Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982, in pursuance of an order of detention dated 12-5-1993 passed by the second respondent, District Magistrate and Collector, Chengalpattu MGR District at Kancheepuram, with a view to preventing him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order.

Petitioner had come to adverse notice in five prior crimes registered by Avadi Police Station under Ss.457 and 380 I.P.C., crime period ranging between January, 1992 and March, 1993. Second adverse case alone was registered under Ss.147, 148, 452, 341, 326, 324, 307 and 302, I.P.C. All the adverse cases were either ready for trial or pending investigation.

While so, at 8 p.m. on 22.4.1993 Ravi of Easwaran Koil Street, Avadi, appeared before Sub-Inspector of Police, Avadi, and complained that at or about 7:30 p.m. on the same night, when he and his fried Murugan were taking tea near Ramaratna Theatre, detenu caught hold of his shirt and questioned him if he was the person taken as a witness by the police and if he would dare deposing against him. So saying, detenu pulled out a knife and attacked him. Since he warded off, he sustained an injury on his left hand. In that process, detenu snatched away the Citizen watch worn by the victim. People nearby attempted to help the victim. They were also threatened by the detenu by brandishing his knife. He also picked up soda bottles and hurled them. Members of the public in total fright, ran helter-skelter .Shop keepers put down their shutters. Traffic in that locality came to a grinding halt. When some one in the crowd shouted that police were arriving, detenu made good to his escape. On the basis of the complaint preferred by Ravi, investigation was taken up and the detenu was arrested at 5:30 a.m. on 23-4-1993. Judicial remand was obtained. After follow-up action, the impugned order of detention was passed.

Mr. V. Parthiban, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, contended that pages 23, 25, 27, 91, 92, 95, 96, 100, 103, 104, 117, 118, 119, 121, 187, 189, 199, 201 and 243 in the paper book supplied to the detenue were illegible and that would suffice to show lack of proper communication. We have perused those pages referred to by petitioner''s Counsel. Most of them relate to accident registers, be it in the adverse crimes or in the ground crime. Though there is some illegibility in the copies of the accident registers supplied in English, petitioner has been furnished with Tamil translations of those accident registers, which are very legible with complete clarity. Therefore, petitioner who knows Tamil, cannot complain that due to illegibility, he was prejudiced to make an effective representation. Some of the other pages have to be read with a little strain, due to the nature of handwriting, but they cannot be stated to be illegible. We read for ourselves parts of those pages and we are satisfied that with some little effort, those pages can certainly be read. It will always be better for the detaining authority to furnish copies of documents relied upon in typed script, for them there cannot be complaints about illegibility, for certain times we do come across difficulty in reading handwritten matters, which are eligible due to the pattern of writing by the scribes concerned. In the instant case, petitioner cannot succeed on the first ground.

The second ground urged was that in the second adverse crime, detaining authority has stated that the petitioner had surrendered on 28-10-1992, before Judicial Magistrate No. 1, Poonamallee and thereafter he was released on bail on 27.1.1993. However, a document had been supplied to the detenu to show that in between this period, his statement was recorded, leading to recovery of certain articles concerned in the crime. The contention was that the petitioner could not have made any statement, while was in judicial remand. This ground has no merit whatever. Even during judicial remand, on application, police custody can be obtained. Whatever it be, the second adverse crime had been referred to only in passing and documents not relied upon, need not have to be supplied for each and every statement made in the grounds of detention, though they have been mentioned only in passing as stated earlier. This ground is also rejected.

This habeas corpus petition, which has no merit, shall stand dismissed.