MOHAMED SADIQUE Vs. SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Habeas Corpus Petition is filed by the brother of the detenu-Settu @ Siddique @ Mohamed Siddique, S/o. Ibrahim, who has been detained as "Black Marketer" under Section 3(1) read with 3(2)(a) of the Prevention of Black Marketing and Maintenance of Supplies of Essential Commodities Act, 1980 (Central Act 7 of 1980) (in short "Central Act 7 of 1980") on the file of the second respondent, by his proceedings in C2/23345/2012, dated 17.9.2012. Now, he has been detained in Central Prison, Cuddalore. Even though several grounds are raised by the petitioner, who is the brother of the detenu in the affidavit filed in support of this petition as well as in the additional grounds raised, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner argued that the detenu was only a driver and he has not signed the acknowledgement for taking samples and one of the accused viz., Kanchana has signed the acknowledgement. However, in the grounds of detention passed by the Detaining Authority, at Page No. 6 of the English version, it is stated that the samples were taken from the seized bags of rice in rotation in separate polythene bags each containing 1 kg and a sample bag was handed over to the accused and their signatures were obtained. The above stated documents filed by the State show that the acknowledgement was signed only by Kanchana. The learned counsel therefore submitted that the Detaining Authority has not applied his mind and without verifying the records, passed the impugned order of detention.

(2.) The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents 1 and 2 justified that the statement made in the grounds of detention and stated that it is a typographical error.

(3.) The said plea of typographical error committed by the Detaining Authority was already negatived by the Division Bench of this Court in H.C.P. No. 1372 of 1999, by order dated 7.4.2000 Karthik v. The Commissioner of Police, Chennai City,2000 MadLJ(Cri) 596. In detention cases, the Honourable Supreme Court has repeatedly held that the Detention Order should strictly satisfy the application of mind, as it affect the right guaranteed to the detenu under Article 21 of the Constitution of India and if there is lacunae or ambiguity or error, the detention order is liable to be quashed on the ground of non-application of mind. The said view was taken by the Division Bench of which one of us (NPVJ) was a party in the decision Deivanai v. The District Collector and District Magistrate Tirunelveli by following the judgment of the Supreme Court Yumman Ongbi Lembi Leima v. State of Manipur, 2012 2 SCC 176. In paragraphs 15 and 16, the Apex Court held thus: