M ANITHA Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is the wife of the detenu and challenge is made to the order of detention dated 29.10.2013 made in Cr. M.P. No. 51/BM/2013(E1), passed by the second respondent under which the detenu has been branded as a 'Black Marketeer' and detained under the Prevention of Black Marketing and Maintenance of Supplies of Essential Commodities Act, 1980 (Central Act 7 of 1980). As per the grounds of detention dated 29.10.2013, the detenu came to the adverse notice in the following case:-

(2.) The detenu came to the adverse notice on an earlier occasion and on 07.10.2013, he along with other accused found in possession of 240 bags of rice meant for Public Distribution System and thereby indulged in activities prejudicial to the maintenance of supplies of commodities essential to the community, which resulted in registration of the ground case in Crime No. 348 of 2013 on the file of Pollachi CSCID for the offences under Section 6(4) of TNSC (RDCS) Order 1982 r/w. 7(1)(a)(ii) of Essential Commodities Act, 1955. The detenu and two other accused were arrested on 07.10.2013 and produced before the Judicial Magistrate No. IV, Coimbatore on 08.10.2013 and remanded to judicial custody. The detaining authority, on being satisfied upon the materials placed before him that the activities of the detenu are prejudicial to the maintenance of supplies of commodities essential to the community, clamped the order of detention. Challenging the said order, petitioner is before this Court by way of this habeas corpus petition.

(3.) The main thrust of the argument made by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that there is variation in the translation of vital information, which would deprive the detenu from making an effective representation for redressal of his grievance. Learned counsel would submit that in para 6 of the English version of the detention order, it has been stated that before the approval of the Government, the representation will be duly considered. That part of the translation is omitted in the Tamil version. Therefore, the impugned order of detention is vitiated in law.