Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 1723 (MAD)

B. Jayabanu v. Commissioner of Police, Chennai

2013-04-22

M.JAICHANDREN, M.M.SUNDRESH

body2013
JUDGMENT M. Jaichandren, J. 1. This Habeas Corpus Petition has been filed to call for the records relating to the order of the 1st respondent, dated 4.1.2013, made in No.1 of 2013, quash the same, and to produce the petitioner's husband, namely, Balamurugan, son of Sudalaimani, aged 26 years, confined in the Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai, before this Court, and to set him at liberty. 2. The detenu, namely, Balamurugan, son of Sudalaimani, has been detained, under Section 3[2][b] read with Section 3[1] of the Prevention of Black Marketing and Maintenance of Supplies of Essential Commodities Act, 1980 (Act No.7 of 1980), pursuant to the order passed by the 1st respondent, in his proceedings, No.1 of 2013, dated 4.1.2013. In view of the detention order passed by the 1st respondent, dated 4.1.2013, the detenu had been lodged in the Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai. 3. Even though various grounds had been raised by the petitioner, in the present Habeas Corpus petition, while challenging the order of detention, passed by the 1st respondent, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner had submitted that the order of detention passed by the 1st respondent, on 4.1.2013, is liable to be set aside, on the ground of non-application of mind on the part of the detaining authority. 4. The main contention of the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner is that the detaining authority, while passing the impugned order of detention, dated 4.1.2013, had not applied his mind properly. In order to substantiate the said claim, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner had referred to the averments made in paragraph No.4 of the grounds of detention, which reads as follows:- "4. I am aware that Thiru. Balamurugan was produced before the Judicial Magistrate Court-I, Thiruvallur, in Civil Supplies CID, Chennai Unit Crime Nos.42/2012, 76/2012 and 241/2012 u/s 6[4] of TNSC [RDCS] Order 1982 r/w 7[1][a][ii] of E.C. Act 1955 on 21.12.2012 at 9.00 P.M. and he was remanded to judicial custody and lodged at Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai, till 04.1.2013 as remand prisoner. Thiru. Balamurugan has moved Bail applications for Civil Supplies, CID, Chennai Unit Crime Nos.42/2012, 76/212 and 241/2012 u/s 6[4] of TNSC [RDCS] Order 1982 r/w.7[1][a][ii] of E.C. Act 1955 before the Court of Judicial Magistrate No.I, Thiruvallur, in Crl.M.P.Nos.5669/2012, 5668/2012 and 5670/2012 respectively and the same are pending. Thiru. Balamurugan has moved Bail applications for Civil Supplies, CID, Chennai Unit Crime Nos.42/2012, 76/212 and 241/2012 u/s 6[4] of TNSC [RDCS] Order 1982 r/w.7[1][a][ii] of E.C. Act 1955 before the Court of Judicial Magistrate No.I, Thiruvallur, in Crl.M.P.Nos.5669/2012, 5668/2012 and 5670/2012 respectively and the same are pending. In a similar case registered at Civil Supplies, CID, Chennai Unit in Crime No.92/2011, u/s 6[4] of TNSC [RDCS] Order 1982 r/w.7[1][a][ii] of E.C. Act 1955 bail was granted to the accused K.M. Makeswells and R.Madhan by the Court of Principal Sessions Judge, Chennai, in Crl.M.P.No.1857/2011 on 15.2.2011. Hence, I infer that it is very likely of his [Balamurugan] coming out on bail in Civil Supplies, CID, Chennai Unit Crime Nos.42/2012, 76/2012 and 241/2012 u/s 6[4] of TNSC [RDCS] Order 1982 r/w 7[1][a][ii] of E.C. Act 1955, as bails are granted by the courts in such cases. If he comes out on bail, he will indulge in such further activities in future as well which will be prejudicial to the maintenance of supplies of commodities essential to the community. Further, if no preventive steps are resorted to restrain his illegal activities, he will indulge in such activities in future, which will severely affect the maintenance of Supplies of essential commodities to the community. On the materials placed before me, I am satisfied that the said Thiru. Balamurugan is a Black Marketeer and there is a compelling necessity to detain him in order to prevent him from indulging in the acts which are prejudicial to the maintenance of Supplies of Commodities essential to the community under the provisions of the the Prevention of Black marketing and Maintenance of Supplies of Essential Commodities Act, 1980." 5. Even though the detaining authority had stated, in paragraph No.4 of the grounds of detention, that in a similar case registered at Civil Supplies, CID, Chennai Unit, in Crime No.92/2011, under Section 6[4] of T.N.S.C. [RDCS] Order 1982 read with 7[1][a][ii] of E.C. Act, 1955, the accused, namely, K.M. Makeswells and R.Madhan, had been granted bail, by the Court of Principal Sessions Judge, Chennai, in Crl.M.P.No.1857 of 2011, by an order, dated 15.2.2011, the detaining authority had failed to furnish a copy of the bail application to the detenu. Thus, the non-supply of the relevant document would vitiate the order of detention, dated 4.1.2013. Thus, the non-supply of the relevant document would vitiate the order of detention, dated 4.1.2013. Further, it is clear that the detenu did not have sufficient opportunity to make an effective representation, against the impugned order of detention, as he had not been furnished with the relevant document. In these circumstances, we are of the view that it would not be appropriate for the detaining authority to state that there is a likelihood of the detenu coming out on bail, in the ground case, since bails are granted, by the courts, in such cases. Hence, we are of the considered view that the detaining authority had passed the impugned order of detention, dated 4.1.2013, without proper application of mind. 6. In such circumstances, the impugned detention order, passed by the first respondent, dated 4.1.2013, is set aside and this Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed. Consequently, the detenu is directed to be set at liberty, forthwith, unless his detention is required in connection with any other case or cause.