Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2000 DIGILAW 104 (MAD)

Smt. Vellathai v. State Of Tamil Nadu And Others

2000-01-27

K.GNANAPRAKASAM, V.S.SIRPURKAR

body2000
Judgment :- V.S. SIRPURKAR, J. The petitioner herein challenges an order dated 31-5-1999 passed by the District Magistrate and District Collector, Virudhunagar, under the provisions of Section 3(2) of the National Security Act, directing the detention of one Veerakumar, son of Natarajan. The petitioner is the mother of the detenu. There are number of grounds raised in support of the said order and it is suggested that there were two cases pending against the petitioner both involving the offences under Sections 147, 148 and 302, I.P.C. all these cases were due to the enmity between two sectors of Schedule Castes i.e., Pallar Community and Parayar Community. It is then suggested that the above Criminal Cases were the result of the detenu belonging to one rival faction and taking active part and there are number of other reasons stated which would not be relevant here. The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner first urged that there is a discrepancy in between the Tamil version and English versions more particularly in respect of paragraph 8. He points out that in paragraph 8, it is stated that the Inspector of Police examined the witnesses viz., Thavalumperumal, V. K. Sathaiyaimurthy, Chinnasamy, Ganesan, Chinnakali, Soosai, Yesappan, Pandian Ravi, residents of in and around W. Pudupatti. He further points out that there was a difference in the Tamil version in respect of one word i.e., "Soosai". We have seen the Tamil version ourselves. We are of the clear opinion that such a discrepancy is of no consequence. In paragraph 8 of Tamil version, in place of the word, the word is written. 2. It is pointed out by the learned Public prosecutor that the statement of the said Soosai is supplied to the detenu vide : page 76 of the Paper Book. The learned Public Prosecutor, therefore, says that at the most the mention of name, in Tamil version might be a spelling mistake, but the detenu has not shown his right to represent effectively has been affected because of such a mistake. Considering the over all circumstances, we are of the opinion that the contention that the word "Soosai" appearing in English version and the word appearing in Tamil version would make much of difference, would be of any consequence. The contentions is, therefore, incorrect and it cannot be accepted. 3. Considering the over all circumstances, we are of the opinion that the contention that the word "Soosai" appearing in English version and the word appearing in Tamil version would make much of difference, would be of any consequence. The contentions is, therefore, incorrect and it cannot be accepted. 3. The learned Counsel for the petitioner then pointed out that a representation dated 23-7-1993 was sent to the Central Government which reached the Central Government on 6-8-1999. It is pointed out that the Central Government rejected the same on 13-8-1999. The learned Counsel feels that this is a delayed consideration by the Central Government. According to us, there cannot be any delay in the consideration by the Central Government of the representation of the detenu particularly which has been served seven days from the receipt of the representation by the State Government. The contention of the learned Counsel, therefore, must be rejected. 4. Lastly, the learned Counsel for the petitioner contended that there has been a breach of provisions of Section 3(5) on the part of the State Government inasmuch as the State Government has merely sent the report and the grounds, but has not bothered to send the materials or reasons in support of such grounds. We have already taken a view in H.C.P. Nos. 1035, 1148 and 1149 of 1999, (Saravanan v. Commissioner of Police, Greater Chennai, Egmore, Chennai, etc., dated 27-1-2000) that it is not necessary for the State Government to supply the materials relied upon by it in support of the grounds while complying with Section 3(5) of the Act. We have given detailed reasons in that judgment and we do not wish to repeat the same. We have held that in not sending the materials and the documents in support of the grounds relied upon by the State Government along with the report under Section 3(5), there has been no breach of any provision. The contentions of the learned Counsel, therefore, must be rejected. 5. In the result, we find that there are no merits in the Habeas Corpus Petition and it must be dismissed and it is accordingly dismissed. Petition dismissed.