Judgment R. Subbiah, J. The petitioner challenges the impugned order of detention, dated 210. 2008, clamped on his brother, namely, Joseph, by the 2nd respondent, branding him as Black Marketeer, as contemplated under Section 3(1) read with 3(2)(a) of the Prevention of Black Marketing and Maintenance of Supplies of Essential Commodities Act, 1980 (Act No.7 of 1980). 2. For clamping the detention order, the detaining authority has relied upon three adverse cases and the ground case. The first adverse case was registered on 23.01.2008 in Crime No.38 of 2008 on the file of Nagapattinam Civil Supplies Criminal Investigation Department and the second, third adverse cases and the ground case were registered in Crime Nos.428 of 2008, 451 of 2008 and 455 of 2008 on 25.09.2008 and 010. 2008 and 010. 2008 respectively. The substance of the grounds of detention is that on 010. 2008, the detenu Joseph, smuggled and transported large quantity of rice meant for Public Distribution System from the ration cardholders at Thanjavur to Kerala State through a lorry for selling them in public market, to get higher profit against the actual price, through his driver one Anthonisamy. The Inspector of Police, Civil Supplies C.I.D., Thanjavur, registered a case in Crime No.455 of 2008 under Section 6(4) of TNSC (RDCS) Order, 1982 read with Section 7(1)(a)(ii) of Essential Commodities Act, 1955 against the said Anthonysamy and Joseph. Anthonysamy was arrested on the same day and the detenu surrendered in the second adverse case before the District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Papanasam on 10. 2008 and was remanded to judicial custody till 210. 2008 and lodged in the Central Prison, Tiruchirappalli on the same day and on 110. 2008, the detenu was formally arrested in the ground case and his confession statement was recorded. In view of the above, the sponsoring authority, by concluding that the detenu is a Black Marketeer, collecting Public Distribution System rice from the people, hoarding and transporting to other places for selling them in open Market for higher profit and thereby acted in a manner prejudicial to the Maintenance of Supplies of Commodities Essential to the Community, sponsored the proposal before the Detaining Authority for passing an order of detention against him. The Detaining Authority, on consideration of the materials placed before him, arrived at his subjective satisfaction that the activities of the detenu are prejudicial to the maintenance of Supplies of Commodities Essential to the Community and therefore, passed the order of detention against the detenu. Aggrieved by the same, the present Habeas Corpus Petition is filed by the petitioner, brother of the detenu. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondents and perused the materials. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the detention order dated 210. 2008 is vitiated on the following grounds: (i) Copy of the pre-detention representation furnished to him is not in the language known to the detenu and even after demand for the same in Tamil version, it was not furnished and as such it has caused prejudice to the detenu. Therefore, due to nonsupply of material document as demanded, the detenu was not in a position to make an effective representation. (ii) On the date of passing the detention order, namely, 210. 2008, the bail application filed in Crl.M.P.No.3701 of 2008 in Crime No.428 of 2008 was pending for consideration before the Judicial Magistrate Court No.II, Thanjavur. Subsequently, bail was granted on 310. 2008. But this vital fact, namely, pendency of the bail application, was not brought to the knowledge of the detaining authority. This aspect clearly shows that the detention order was passed mechanically without application of mind by the detaining authority. (iii) In the surrender petition No.3772 of 2008 filed in Crime No.428 of 2008 before the District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Papanasam, the detenu has clearly stated in detail that the cases filed against him were false cases. But the said surrender petition was not considered by the detaining authority while passing the detention order. (iv) There is no valid remand on the date of passing the detention order. Hence, on those grounds, the detention order is liable to be set aside. 5. Per contra, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that, (i) the pre-detention representation was sent by the father of the detenu. Since the representation is originated from the side of the detenu, it is not necessary that translation copy of the same in the language known to him should be given. (ii) Though the bail application was filed in Crl.M.P.No.3701 of 2008 on 210. Since the representation is originated from the side of the detenu, it is not necessary that translation copy of the same in the language known to him should be given. (ii) Though the bail application was filed in Crl.M.P.No.3701 of 2008 on 210. 2008, notice in the said application was received by the sponsoring authority only on 30.10.2008. In the meantime, the detention order was passed by the second respondent on 210. 2008 in P.D.No. 22 of 2008 against the detenu. Since the sponsoring authority was not informed about the filing of the bail application till the date of passing the detention order, the same could not be furnished to the detaining authority. In the said circumstances, the question of non-application of mind by the detaining authority while passing the order of detention, does not arise. (iii) With regard to the surrender petition, it is submitted by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor that it is not correct to state that the surrender petition filed in Crime No.428 of 2008 was not considered by the detaining authority. In fact, the sponsoring authority has referred to the fact of surrender of the accused before the District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate Court, Papanasam on 10. 2008, in his report dated 110. 2008, forwarded to the detaining authority. After considering the said report, the detaining authority rejected the pre-detention representation, by a letter dated 210. 2008. The copy of the said rejection letter in Tamil was also served upon the detenu on 210. 2008. That apart, the said surrender petition was also produced before the detaining authority, which could be evident from pages 65 to 77 of the booklet. This fact wold go to show that all the materials, including surrender petition, were considered by the detaining authority before passing the order of detention. (iv) It is also not correct to state that on the date of detention order, there is no valid remand. Since the remand was extended through video conference, no specific order was found in the remand order as per the request made by the petitioner and hence, this would not have caused prejudice to the detenu in any way. 6. (iv) It is also not correct to state that on the date of detention order, there is no valid remand. Since the remand was extended through video conference, no specific order was found in the remand order as per the request made by the petitioner and hence, this would not have caused prejudice to the detenu in any way. 6. After perusing the entire materials, we find that the pre-detention representation was sent by the father of the detenu, namely, David and the same was received by the sponsoring authority and forwarded the same to the detaining authority with his report along with the relevant materials. After considering the entire materials, the predetention representation was rejected on 210. 2008. Since the pre-detention representation originated from the side of the detenu himself, we are of the view that non-furnishing of the translated copy of the pre-detention representation, would not have caused prejudice to the detenu in making his representation. 7. So far as the pendency of the bail application in Crl.M.P.No.3701 of 2008 in Crime No.428 of 2008 is concerned, on a perusal of the materials, we find that the sponsoring authority had received the notice in the said application only on 30.10.2008 i.e.after detention order was passed. Under such circumstance, non-furnishing of the fact of the pendency of the bail application to the detaining authority, would not vitiate the order in any way. Therefore, the contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner in this regard is also rejected. 8. With regard to the contention relating to the surrender petition, we find that a copy of the surrender petition and its Tamil version were available from pages 65 to 77 of the booklet, as pointed out by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor. Therefore, it cannot be said that the surrender petition was not considered by the detaining authority while passing the detention order. 9. Further, in the report dated 20.10.2008, which was forwarded by the sponsoring authority to the detaining authority, a reference with regard to the surrender of the detenu was made, as seen from pages 206 to 208 of the booklet. Hence, under such circumstances, it cannot be said that the surrender petition filed by the detenu was not considered by the detaining authority while passing the detention order. 10. Similarly, there is also no delay in considering the representation sent by the detenu on 011. Hence, under such circumstances, it cannot be said that the surrender petition filed by the detenu was not considered by the detaining authority while passing the detention order. 10. Similarly, there is also no delay in considering the representation sent by the detenu on 011. 2008 and communicated the same to the detenu by the 1st and 3rd respondents. 11. So far as the contention relating to extension of remand is concerned, it is seen at page Nos.196 and 197 of the booklet, a requisition letter dated 210. 2008 was sent by the sponsoring authority to the Judicial Magistrate No.II, Thanjavur, that the remand of the petitioner was extended from 10. 2008 to 210. 2008 and then till 011. 2008. An endorsement made by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Thanjavur on the requisition letter shows that the remand of the detenu was extended through video conference. When the accused was not produced physically before the Magistrate, it is not necessary for the Magistrate to pass a specific written order with regard to the extension of remand. The endorsement found in the report would itself sufficient that there is a valid remand. Under such circumstance, we do not find any force in the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner to set aside the order of detention passed by the second respondent, namely, the detaining authority and hence, for the reasons stated above, the habeas corpus petition is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the habeas corpus petition is dismissed.