J. Sajith vs Secretary to the Government, Department of Consumer Affairs, Government of India and Others

M. Jaichandren, J.—This Habeas Corpus Petition has been filed to call for the records relating to the order of the third respondent, dated

31.12.2012, made in proceedings No. Cr.M.P. No. 33/BM/2012(El), and quash the same, and to produce the detenu, namely, Saleem, son of

Jamaludeen, aged about 31 years, confined in the Central Prison, Coimbatore, before this Court and to set him at liberty. The petitioner is the

brother of the detenu, Saleem, son of Jamaludeen, who has been detained, u/s 3(1), read with 3(2)(a) of the Prevention of Black Marketing and

Maintenance of Supplies of Essential Commodities Act, 1980 (Central Act 7 of 1980), pursuant to the order passed by the third respondent, in his

proceedings No. Cr.M.P. No. 33/BM/2012(El), dated 31.12.2012. In view of the detention order passed by the third respondent, dated

31.12.2012, the detenu had been lodged in the Central Prison, Coimbatore.

Even though various grounds had been raised in the Habeas Corpus Petition filed by the petitioner, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of

the petitioner had placed emphasis on the grounds mentioned hereunder, while stating that the impugned detention order passed by the detaining

authority is bad in the eye of law. He had submitted that there was clear non-application of mind, on the part of the detaining authority, while

passing the detention order against the detenu.

The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner had referred to Paragraph-5 of the grounds of detention, which reads as follows:

I am aware that Thiru. Saleem was produced before the Judicial Magistrate No. IV, Coimbatore in Civil Supplies Criminal Investigation

Department, Pollachi Cr. Nos. 280 of 2012 and 322 of 2012 u/s 6(4) of T.N.S.C. (RDCS) order 1982 read with 7(1)a(ii) of E.C. Act 1955 on

2.12.2012 at 6.45 p.m. and lodged at Central Prison, Coimbatore till 14.12.2012 as remand prisoner. Further his remand period was extended till

28.12.2012. Further his remand period was extended till 11.1.2013. He has filed a bail application in Civil Supplies Criminal Investigation

Department, Pollachi Unit Cr. No. 280 of 2012 u/s 6(4) of T.N.S.C. (RDCS) order 1982 read with 7(1) a(ii) of E.C. Act 1955 before the

Judicial Magistrate IV, Coimbatore in C.M.P. No. 4651 of 2012 and it was dismissed on 6.12.2012 and his bail application in Civil Supplies

Criminal Investigation Department, Pollachi Unit Cr. No. 322 of 2012 u/s 6(4) of T.N.S.C. (RDCS) order 1982 read with 7(1) a(ii) of E.C. Act

1955 before the Judicial Magistrate IV, Coimbatore C.M.P. No. 4710 of 2012 was dismissed on 11.12.2012. In a similar case registered in Civil

Supplies Criminal Investigation Department, Coimbatore Unit Cr. No. 912 of 2011 u/s 6(4) of T.N.S.C. (RDCS) order 1982 read with 7(1) a(ii)

of E.C. Act 1955 bail was granted to the accused Thiru Saleem by the Court of Judicial Magistrate No. IV, Coimbatore in C.M.P. No. 4713 of

2011 on 28.12.2011. Hence, there is a real possibility of Thiru Saleem coming out on bail in Civil Supplies Criminal Investigation Department,

Pollachi Unit Cr. Nos. 280 of 2012 and 322 of 2012 u/s 6(4) of T.N.S.C. (RDCS) order 1982 read with 7(1) a(ii) of E.C. Act 1955 by filing bail

applications before the appropriate Court. Since bails are being granted by the Courts in such cases. If he comes out on bail, he is likely to indulge

in such further prejudicial activities in future. Therefore there is a compelling necessity to pass an order of detention against him with a view to

prevent him from indulging in such prejudicial activities in future. Further recourse to the normal criminal law will not have the desired effect of

effectively preventing him from indulging in such activities, which are prejudicial to the maintenance of Supplies of Essential Commodities to the

community. On the materials placed before me, I am satisfied that Thiru. Saleem is a ""Black Marketer"" and there is a compelling necessity to detain

him under the Prevention of Black Marketing and Maintenance of Supplies of Essential Commodities Act 1980 in order to prevent him from

indulging in such acts in future which will be prejudicial to the maintenance of supplies of commodities essential to the community.

In paragraph 5 of the grounds of detention, it had been stated that the accused has filed a bail application in Civil Supplies Criminal Investigation

Department, Pollachi Unit, in Cr. No. 280 of 2012, u/s 6(4) of T.N.S.C. (RDCS) order, 1982, read with 7(1) a(ii) of E.C. Act 1955, before the

Judicial Magistrate IV, Coimbatore, in C.M.P. No. 4651 of 2012 and it was dismissed, on 6.12.2012, and his bail application in Civil Supplies

Criminal Investigation Department, Pollachi Unit, in Cr. No. 322 of 2012, u/s 6(4) of T.N.S.C. (RDCS) order, 1982, read with 7(1) a(ii) of E.C.

Act, 1955, before the Judicial Magistrate IV, Coimbatore, C.M.P. No. 4710 of 2012 was dismissed, on 11.12.2012.

Even though, in paragraph 5 of the grounds of detention, the detaining authority had stated that in a similar case registered in Civil Supplies

Criminal Investigation Department, Coimbatore, Unit Cr. No. 912 of 2011, u/s 6(4) of T.N.S.C. (RDCS) Order, 1982, read with 7(1) a(ii) of

E.C. Act, 1955, against the detenu, bail had been granted by the Judicial Magistrate Court No. IV, Coimbatore, in C.M.P. No. 4713 of 2011, on

28.12.2011, the detaining authority had not shown sufficient reasons to come to the conclusion that the detenu would come out on bail in the case

in Cr. Nos. 280 of 2012 and 322 of 2012, u/s 6(4) of T.N.S.C. (RDCS) order, 1982, read with 7(1) a(ii) of E.C. Act, 1955.

Per contra, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents had submitted that the detention order had been passed by the detaining

authority after arriving at his subjective satisfaction, based on the cogent materials available before him. He had further submitted that the order of

detention passed by the detaining authority does not suffer from non-application of mind by the said authority.

In view of the submissions made by the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the petitioner, as well as the respondents, and on a perusal of

the records available, it is noted that the detaining authority had not shown sufficient reasons to come to the conclusion that the detenu would come

out on bail in the ground case, in Cr. Nos. 280 of 2012, and 322 of 2012 u/s 6(4) of T.N.S.C. (RDCS) order, 1982, read with 7(1) a(ii) of E.C.

Act, 1955.

Thus, it is noted that there has been no proper application of mind by the detaining authority, while passing the impugned order of the detention,

dated 31.12.2012. Hence, this Court finds it appropriate to quash the impugned detention order, dated 31.12.2012. Accordingly, the impugned

detention order passed by the third respondent is quashed, and the Habeas Corpus petition stands allowed. The detenu is directed to be set at

liberty, forthwith, unless his detention is required in connection with any other case or cause.