AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
N. Paul Vasanthakumar, J.—This Habeas Corpus Petition is filed by the brother of the detenu-Settu @ Siddique @ Mohamed Siddique,
S/o. Ibrahim, who has been detained as ""Black Marketer"" 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) (in short ""Central Act 7 of 1980"") on the file of the second respondent, by
his proceedings in C2/23345/2012, dated 17.9.2012. Now, he has been detained in Central Prison, Cuddalore. Even though several grounds are
raised by the petitioner, who is the brother of the detenu in the affidavit filed in support of this petition as well as in the additional grounds raised,
the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner argued that the detenu was only a driver and he has not signed the acknowledgement for taking
samples and one of the accused viz., Kanchana has signed the acknowledgement. However, in the grounds of detention passed by the Detaining
Authority, at Page No. 6 of the English version, it is stated that the samples were taken from the seized bags of rice in rotation in separate
polythene bags each containing 1 kg and a sample bag was handed over to the accused and their signatures were obtained. The above stated
documents filed by the State show that the acknowledgement was signed only by Kanchana. The learned counsel therefore submitted that the
Detaining Authority has not applied his mind and without verifying the records, passed the impugned order of detention.
The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents 1 and 2 justified that the statement made in the grounds of detention
and stated that it is a typographical error.
The said plea of typographical error committed by the Detaining Authority was already negatived by the Division Bench of this Court in H.C.P.
No. 1372 of 1999, by order dated 7.4.2000 Karthik Vs. The Commissioner of Police, Tiruchirapalli City. Tiruchirapalli and The Chief Secretary
to Government of Tamil Nadu, Prohibition and Excise Department, Secretariat, Fort. St. George, Chennai-600009, . In detention cases, the
Honourable Supreme Court has repeatedly held that the Detention Order should strictly satisfy the application of mind, as it affect the right
guaranteed to the detenu under Article 21 of the Constitution of India and if there is lacunae or ambiguity or error, the detention order is liable to
be quashed on the ground of non-application of mind. The said view was taken by the Division Bench of which one of us (NPVJ) was a party in
the decision Deivanai v. The District Collector and District Magistrate, Tirunelveli (2012) 2 TLNJ 410 by following the judgment of the Supreme
Court Yumman Ongbi Lembi Leima Vs. State of Manipur and Others, . In paragraphs 15 and 16, the Apex Court held thus:
As has been observed in various cases of similar nature by this Court, the personal liberty of an individual is the most precious and prized right
guaranteed under the Constitution in Part III thereof. The State has been granted the power to curb such rights under criminal laws as also under
the laws of preventive detention, which, therefore, are required to be exercised with due caution as well as upon a proper appreciation of the facts
as to whether such acts are in any way prejudicial to the interest and the security of the State and its citizens, or seek to disturb public law and
order, warranting the issuance of such an order.
In our view, the detaining authority acted rather casually in the matter in issuing the order of detention and the High Court also appears to have
missed the right to liberty as contained in Article 21 of the Constitution and Article 22(2) thereof, as well as the provisions of Section 167 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure.
Applying the said judgments to the facts of this case, the detention order passed against the detenu is liable to be set aside. Accordingly, the
Detention Order dated 17.9.2012 passed by the second respondent in C2/23345/2012 is set aside and the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed.
The detenu ""Settu @ Siddique @ Mohamed Siddique, S/o. Ibrahim"" is directed to be set at liberty forthwith, unless his presence is required in
connection with any other case. Connected miscellaneous petition is closed.