Madras High Court
Mani vs District Magistrate And Dist. ... on 4 April, 2002
Author: D. Murugesan
Bench: D. Murugesan
ORDER S. Jagadeesan, J.
1. Petitioner is the son-in-law of the detenu, by name Panja (a) Panjatcharam, who was detained as a bootlegger pursuant to the order of the first respondent dated 26.9.2001.
2. Challenging the said impugned order of detention, the following grounds were urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner:
"i. There was a delay in the disposal of the representation.
ii. The second respondent did not call for any remarks from the detaining authority in respect of the allegations made by the petitioner in the said representation, but disposed of the same in a mechanical manner and as such, the impugned order is vitiated.
iii. There is a discrepancy in the English version of the grounds of detention in paragraph 5 wherein the satisfaction with regard to the imminent possibility of the detenu coming out on bail is missing.
iv. At page 54 of the booklet, the hand-writing expert's opinion is available with regard to the adverse case No.5 as to whether the detenu has affixed his thumb impression affirming the payment of fine. When the hand-writing expert's opinion is clear that the thumb impression available on the relevant papers is not clear to identify the same with that of the detenu, the detaining authority hass erred in opining that the detenu has paid the fine in respect of the fifth adverse case. Here again, the opinion of the detaining authority is vitiated on the ground of non application of mind."
3. So far as the first ground urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner is concerned, we find from the records that the representation of the detenu was presented in person before the Advisory Board on 1.11.2001. The same was forwarded to the Government, which received the same on 7.11.2001. The file was opened and circulated on 9.11.2001 to the Under Secretary and on 12.11.2001 to the Deputy Secretary as well as the Secretary to Government. On 13.11.2001, the Honourable Minister rejected the same.
4. So far as the other representation sent by the detenu dated 7.11.2001, which was received by the Government on 15.11.2001, is concerned, since the same is just a copy of the earlier representation, the Government thought fit not to take any action, in view of the fact that the same representation was already considered and rejected. Hence, we do not find any delay or non-consideration of the representation by the Government and as such, there is no merit in the first contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner.
5. So far as the second ground that the Government has not called for any remarks from the detaining authority before ever the representation was considered and disposed of is concerned, we perused the file. The representation of the detenu is that the adverse cases and the ground case were foisted against him. When, in the adverse cases, the detenu was found guilty and paid fine and is still making a representation that those cases were foisted, in our view, there is absolutely no need for the Government to call for any parawar remarks on such false representation of the detenu. When, prima facie, the representation does not deserve any consideration, the authority is not bound to call for any remarks from the detaining authority. Hence, here-again, we do not find any merit in the second contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner.
6. So far as the third ground that the detaining authority has failed to consider that there is no imminent possibility of the detenu to come out on bail is concerned, it could be seen that there is a specific recital in paragraph 5 of the grounds of detention that there is a likelihood of filing the further bail application in the same Court or higher Courts for the offences under Section 4(1)(i), 4(1)(a)(ii) of the Tamilnadu Prohibition Act and Section 328 of the Indian Penal Code to come out on bail. The likelihood of filing further bail application and coming out on bail has to be read together. If both are read together, the word 'likelihood' is applicable not only to filing of the application, but also for the detenu coming out on bail. Hence, it cannot be said that the detaining authority has failed to consider the imminent possibility of the detenu coming out on bail. In the Tamil version also, the same terms are mentioned. Hence, we do not find any omission or discrepancy in the third ground as contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner.
7. So far as the last ground with regard to the non consideration of the hand-writing expert's opinion is concerned, the detenu is having six adverse cases as stated in the grounds of detention. When the detenu is having previous history of six adverse cases to his credit, even assuming that one case has been foisted, the remaining five adverse cases are there to consider his conduct. If the detaining authority has taken into consideration of those five adverse cases and formed the subjective satisfaction along with the ground case with regard to the regular involvement of the detenu in the illicit arrack trade, in our view, the mere non-consideration of the hand-writing expert's opinion in respect of the fifth adverse case will not vitiate the order of detention. Even apart from that, the hand-writing expert's opinion does not mention that the thumb impression available on record is not that of the detenu. What all the hand-writing expert stated is that the thumb impression could not be compared for want of clearness. When that be so, it cannot be conclusively said that the detenu is not involved in the fifth adverse case. Hence, the last contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner also deserves no merit.
8. Accordingly, the habeas corpus petition is dismissed.