KANCHANA Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge is to the order dated 29.9.2003 passed by the District Magistrate and District Collector, Vellore, branding one Sundaram, S/o Vellai @ Munuswamy as a bootlegger and directing his detention under Section 3(1) of the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Forest Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders and Slum Grabbers Act, 1982 (Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982). The said person is shown to have been involved in as many as 12 criminal cases pertaining to the offences under the Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act and is also said to be involved in an incident dated 14.9.2003, where he was found to be in possession of 100 litres of illicitly distilled arrack, which ultimately was found to be laced with atropine, a poisonous substance. The percentage of atropine was 6.7%, which according to the doctor could be a fatal percentage.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner before us firstly urged that there was a delayed consideration of the representation made by the wife of the detenu. The said representation is dated 3.11.2003, which reached the Government on 5.11.2003. The remarks were called on 7.11.2003 from the detaining authority, which remarks reached back the Government on 17.11.2003. The files were submitted on 20.11.2003. They were considered by the authorities on 20.11.2003, 21.11.2003 and 24.11.2003 and on 24.11.2003, the representation was rejected. This according to us, cannot said to be a delayed consideration. Learned counsel, however, further argued that there was a second representation made. This was even before the representation reached the Government on 20.11.2003. The remarks were called on 21.11.2003 and it was ultimately rejected on 26.12.2003. According to the learned counsel, the second representation was not considered in time and the delay caused has breached the constitutional right of the petitioner.

(3.) In support of her contention, the learned counsel firstly relied on a reported decision of the Supreme Court reported in 1998 S.C.C (Criminal) 831 PREM LATA SHARMA .VS. DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, MATHURA AND OTHERS, and more particularly on the observations made in paragraphs 3 and 4 thereof. We have considered the decision carefully and we find that it is not applicable to the present case. That was a case where the representation made to the State Government was not forwarded to the Central Government and that was found fault with. Therefore, that was a case of non consideration of a representation made to the Central Government. The Supreme Court observed that it was not for the State Government to decide as to which representation was to be forwarded and which representation was not to be forwarded. The facts are quite different here.