LAWS(MAD)-2002-6-92

RANI Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

Decided On June 04, 2002
RANI Appellant
V/S
STATE OF TAMIL NADU Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ONE Ramu was detained under the 14 Tamil Nadu Act of 1982, under a detention order dated 27.11.2001, passed by the District Collector and District Magistrate, Thiruvallore District after the Detaining Authority had reached satisfaction on the basis of the materials placed before him by the sponsoring authority, who had placed such materials before him, on the 23rd November, 2001 that the said Ramu was a bootlegger selling I.D. arrack mixed with intoxicating poisonous substances in contravention of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act. The detention was ordered with a view to prevent him from indulging in such prejudicial activities in future. The detenu, as set out in the detention order, had been involved in seven cases, in three of which he had already been convicted and in one of which he was fined and three other cases were pending before the Courts. The detenu was in custody at the time the detention order was passed.

(2.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner, who is the wife of the detenu, questioned the legality and validity of the detention on two grounds, first, that there is an error of fact in paragraph 2 of the order of detention, in so far as it contains a statement "he has not filed any bail petition so far". It was pointed out by the counsel that the detenu had in fact filed a bail application on the 21st of November, 2001, copy of which had also been served on the concerned Public Prosecutor and that that bail application came to be rejected on the 27th, the very day on which the order of detention was passed. LEARNED counsel submitted that failure on the part of the sponsoring authority to place the bail application before the Detaining Authority vitiated the order of detention as it amounted to suppression of relevant material and also rendered the detention order illegal, inasmuch as it resulted in non-application of mind to facts which should have been but had not been considered by the Detaining Authority.

(3.) CONCLUSION Nos.(4) and (5) set out in paragraph 12 are as under: