M.K. Ramesh vs The Secretary to Government, Food Co-operation and Consumer Protection Department, The District Magistrate and District Collector and The Secretary to the Government, Food and Consumer Protection Department, Government of India

P. Sathasivam, J.—The petitioner, who is the brother of the detenu, by name Mahesh, who is detained as a ""Black marketer"" u/s 3(2)(a)

read with 3(1) of the Prevention of of Black Marketing and Maintenance of Supplies of Essential Commodities Act, 1980 (7 of 1980), by the

impugned detention order dated 09.07.2006, challenges the same in this Petition.

Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondents.

At the foremost, learned Counsel for the petitioner, by drawing our attention to the arrest memo, which is available at page 47 of the paper

book supplied to the detenu, has contended that though the accused/detenu was arrested at 11.30 a.m., on 06.07.2006 and the case was

registered at 3.00 p.m. on the same day in Crime No. 292/2006 u/s 6(4) of TNSC (RDCS) Order 1982 read with 7(1)(a)(ii) of E.C. Act, it is not

clear as to how the said crime number has been noted in the arrest memo even at 11.30 a.m. According to the learned Counsel for the petitioner,

in the absence of clarification by the person concerned and placing the relevant documents before the detaining authority at the time of passing of

the detention order, the same gets vitiated.

In respect of the said argument, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor relying on paragraph 5 of the counter affidavit of the District Collector,

Nagapattinam, submitted that inasmuch as the arrest was intimated to his relative at 05.01 p.m. on 06.07.2006, there is no flaw or error as argued

by the learned Counsel for the petitioner.

We have verified all the documents. The arrest memo, which is available at page 47 of the paper book supplied to the detenu makes it clear that

the accused was arrested at 11.30 a.m. on 06.07.2006. The First Information Report which is available at page 44 of the paper book clearly

shows that the accused was taken to the police station at 3.00 p.m. and registered a case in Crime No. 292/2006 u/s 6(4) of TNSC (RDCS)

Order 1982 read with 7(1)(a)(ii) of E.C. Act. It is not in dispute that only after 3.00 p.m., that too after registering the case, the crime number is

known to any one. In such circumstances, when the arrest memo was prepared at 11.30 a.m., on 06.07.2006, it is not clear as to how the crime

number has been noted in the said memo. As rightly pointed out by the learned Counsel for the petitioner, the detaining authority has failed to

clarify the said vital mistake appeared in the document viz., arrest memo at the time of passing of the detention order. Further, even though the

detaining authority himself has filed a counter affidavit, unfortunately the said aspect has not been adverted to and explained. Though the learned

Additional Public Prosecutor has submitted that the arrest was intimated to one Ramesh, relative of the detenu over phone, at the most it satisfies

the mandates of law as declared by the Supreme Court in D.K. Basu''s Case. We are satisfied that there is no explanation by any one including the

person, who sworn an affidavit, how the crime number found place in the arrest memo, which was prepared at 11.30 a.m. on 06.07.2006. In the

absence of such explanation, we hold that the detention order is vitiated.

In the light of what is stated above, the impugned detention is liable to be quashed and accordingly the same is quashed. The Habeas Corpus

Petition is allowed and the impugned order of detention is set aside. The detenu is directed to be set at liberty forthwith from the custody unless he

is required in some other case or cause.