AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
P. Sathasivam, J.—The petitioner Vijayalakshmi, wife of the detenu by name Ayyappan, who was detained as a ""Black Marketeer"" as
contemplated u/s 3(2)(a) of the Prevention of Black Marketing and Maintenance of Supplies of Essential Commodities Act, 1980, by the
impugned detention order dated 18.07.2006, challenges the same in this Petition.
Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondents 1 and 2 and Mr. P. Kumaresan, learned
Additional Central Government Standing Counsel for the third respondent.
Mr. V. Parthiban, learned Counsel for the petitioner at the foremost submitted that inasmuch as crime number available only at the time of
registering the First Information Report found a place in the document prepared much earlier, in the absence of clarification of the said vital error
by the detaining authority, his ultimate detention order is liable to be quashed. Elaborating the above argument, learned Counsel for the petitioner
has brought to our notice that the arrest memo, which is available at page 44 of the paper book contains Crime No. 388 of 2006 and seizure
mahazar, which is available at page 42 of the paper book also contains Crime No. 388 of 2006. It is pointed out that the above documents were
allegedly prepared earlier to registering the case with crime number. In such circumstances, in the absence of clarification by the authority
concerned about the vital error, the detention order is to be interfered with. We verified both the documents as well as the time of arrest and
preparation of those documents. In the counter affidavit, particularly in para 5, the District Collector, Theni / detaining authority has stated, ""The
crime number is ascertained over phone from the Unit at 07.15 hours. There is no prejudice is caused to the detenu in connection with the crime
numbers found in the documents and his fundamental right is not affected in any manner."" In view of the above explanation that the crime number
was ascertained over phone at the time of preparation of arrest memo and seizure mahazar, the contention raised by the learned Counsel for the
petitioner is liable to be rejected.
The learned Counsel for the petitioner by drawing our attention to page 64 of the paper book submitted that though the English version of the
order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Uthamapalayam contains a material aspect, viz., if the detenu is enlarged on bail, he would commit
such offence, the same does not find a place in the Tamil version of the said order, which is available at page 66 of the paper book. We verified
the order of the learned Magistrate dated 11.07.2006, both English and Tamil versions. It is true that except one sentence in the first paragraph all
other portions have been correctly translated and supplied to the detenu. First of all, it is not in dispute that it is an order passed by the learned
Magistrate granting him bail and based on the same he was released on bail. In such circumstances, merely because there is omission of one
sentence of the said order in the Tamil version, we are of the view that the detention order cannot be faulted with. Further, the detenu has not
shown any prejudice caused to him due to the same. Accordingly, we reject the said contention.
Finally, the learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that though in para 6 of the grounds of detention it is stated that the detenu Ayyappan
was arrested in connection with Uthamapalaym Civil Supplies CID Crime No. 388 of 2006, and he moved bail petition in Criminal M.P. No.
5911 of 2006 before the Judicial Magistrate, Uthamapalayam and he went on bail on 11.07.2006, the documents, such as furnishing security etc.,
were not placed either before the detaining authority nor supplied to the detenu. We are unable to accept the said contention. It is not in dispute
that on the orders of the Judicial Magistrate, Uthamapalayam, the detenu was released on bail on 11.07.2006. When such position is not disputed
and the detaining authority has considered all the relevant and required materials, merely because the documents, such as furnishing security and
acceptance of the same by the Court are not relevant and relied on by the detaining authority; hence the order of detention cannot be faulted with.
At any rate, the reference made to the effect that the detenu came out on bail on 11.07.2006, is only a referred statement and no prejudice was
shown by the detenu, because of non-placement of said documents. In view of the said factual details, we are of the view that the decision relied
on by the learned Counsel for the petitioner, viz., 1994 (2) L W 618 (Irudhi @ Irudayanathan and Anr. v. State of Tamil Nadu etc., and Anr.), is
not applicable to the case on hand.
Except the above grounds, no other ground has been raised before us.
In the light of what is stated above, we do not find any error or infirmity in the impugned order of detention and there is no valid ground for
interference. Hence, this petition fails and the same is dismissed.