AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
S. Jagadeesan, J.—The petitioner is the wife of the detenu Sekar, who has been detained as a bootlegger as contemplated under the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982. The first respondent here in passed the impugned order of detention dated 29-6-1999 detaining the detenu in order to prevent his indulgence in the activities affecting the public health and public order. The detenu had involved in four adverse cases.
Since the order of detention is being challenged on technical grounds, we are not propose to elaborate the facts herein.
Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the detenu moved the bail application on 23-6-99 and the same was dismissed on 28-6-99. The sponsoring authority has filed the affidavit before the detaining authority on 28-6-99 and in the affidavit, he has failed to furnish the particulars with regard to the dismissal of the bail application of the detenu. But however, in the grounds of detention, in paragraph 5, the detaining authority has referred to the dismissal of the bail application and the date of dismissal has been written ink and as such, the sponsoring authority might have furnished the particulars with regard to the dismissal of the bail application subsequent to the filing of the affidavit and as such, the impugned order of detention is vitiated.
We have carefully considered the contention of the learned counsel for petitioner. It has been held by the Apex court as well as this Court that only if any vital material, which would weigh in the mind of the detaining authority in forming the subjective satisfaction for the need to pass the order of detention, has been placed before the detaining authority subsequent to the filing of the affidavit of the sponsoring authority, then only, the order of detention is vitiated and is liable to be set aside. Hence it is for us to consider as to whether the non placement of the particulars with regard to the dismissal of the bail application filed by the detenu is a vital factor, which would weigh with the detaining authority in forming the subjective satisfaction for passing the order of detention.
We need not trouble ourselves in view of the judgment of the Supreme court in the case of Abdul Sathar Ibrahim Manik v. Union of India (1992 SCC Cri. 1) In paragraph 12. the learned Judges, after referring to various judgments have set down their conclusions In Clause (3) at page 17, the learned Judges have categorically held as follows:-
If the detenu has moved for bail, then the application and the order there on refusing bail even if not placed before the detaining authority, it does not amount to suppression of relevant material. The question of non application of mind and subjective satisfaction being impaired does not arise as long as the detaining authority was aware of the fact that the detenu was in actual custody.
In view of the above dictum, it is clear that the non placement of the material itself will not vitiate the order of detention.
However in the case on hand, the records are clear that the bail application and the dismissal order of bail application were placed before the detaining authority and the copies have also been furnished to the detenu, which form part of the booklet. If that be so, the non mentioning of the bail application and the dismissal of the same in the affidavit of the sponsoring authority would not in any manner vitiate the order of detention. Hence, the contention of the learned counsel for petitioner cannot be countenanced.
Learned counsel for the petitioner again contended that in the affidavit of the sponsoring authority, the date has been written in ink, when all the other particulars have been typed and as such, there is a doubt as to whether the sponsoring authority has filed the affidavit before the detaining authority on the same date.
We perused the affidavit filed by the sponsoring authority. The date has been written in ink. Lower down, the detaining authority has signed and has given the date, which is in ink. There, the detaining authority has given the date as 28-6-1999 below his signature. When that be so, merely because the date in the affidavit has been written by the sponsoring authority in ink, it cannot be a ground to entertain any doubt with regard to the genuineness of the document. Hence, this contention is also rejected.
Similarly it was contended that in regard 5 of the grounds of detention, the date of dismissal of the bail application has been written in ink.
When the paper were prepared, the criminal miscellaneous petition number has been mentioned and the court before which the bail application has been filed are all type written. Since the date might not have been furnished at the time of preparation, the date has been written in ink and that does not mean that the grounds of detention themselves have been prepared at the later point of time and the particulars with regard to the dismissal of the bail application were furnished subsequent to the signing of the grounds of detention.
It may be pertinent to note that the order of detention was passed on 29-6-1999 and the order of detention as well as the grounds of detention both were served on the detenu on 29-6-1999 itself. Hence we do not find any merits in the contention of the learned counsel for petitioner.
Lastly, it was contended that the pages 11, 22, and 33 of the booklet relating to the receipts for payment of fine in connection with adverse cases were not clear and the petitioner was not furnished with clean copy of the same, even though asked for.
We find from the booklet that pages. 9,20, and 31 are the clear copies of the receipts. Even though they are not in the printed form as the original, the contents of the same have been cleanly typed out furnished. Apart from this the translated clean copies were also furnished Hence, it cannot be said that the petitioner had been prejudiced because of the illegible documents furnished at pages 11, 22 and 33 of the booklet.
For all the reasons stated above, we do not find any merits in this petition. Hence this petition is dismissed as devoid of any merits.