MARIAM BEEVI Vs. STATE OF TAMILNADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE detention order dated 17. 1. 2005 is under challenge before this Court by the mother of the detenu. Though several grounds have been raised, we are of the view that the order of detention could be set aside on a simple ground raised in the additional grounds in H. C. M. P. No. 102 of 2005, which is as follows :- On behalf of the detenu, a pre-detention representation was sent by the mother of the detenu on 12. 1. 2005 to the third respondent with a request to get the signature of her son and forward it to the sponsoring authority. Though the said representation reached the sponsoring authority on 13. 1. 2005, the sponsoring authority forwarded the same to the detaining authority with a considerable delay and ultimately, the detaining authority rejected the pre-detention representation on 31. 1. 2005. As a matter of fact, the detention order has been passed as early as on 17. 1. 2005. THE reply sent by the detaining authority dated 13. 1. 2005 would indicate that the pre-detention representation dated 12. 1. 2005 was not at all considered by the authority concerned before arriving at the subjective satisfaction with regard to the order of detention. This would vitiate the order of detention as held by the supreme Court in Suresh Kumar vs. State reported in 2004 (1) S. C. C. 394 and t. M. Syed Ali & another v. State of Tamilnadu reported in 1999 (1) M. W. N. Cri. 360.

(2.) IN reply to the said submission, the learned additional Public Prosecutor, on the strength of the counter filed today by the first respondent, would submit that though the pre-detention representation dated 12. 1. 2005 was received by the Superintendent of Central Prison, Chennai on 13. 1. 2005, the signature from the detenu was obtained only on 17. 1. 2005 since the intervening holidays were Pongal holidays and the same was forwarded to the detaining authority concerned. Hence, the details given in the counter clearly show that the Superintendent of Central Prison, Chennai has not chosen to obtain signature from the detenu on 13. 1. 2005 itself and forward the representation on the same day to the authority concerned, even though it was a working day. Admittedly, the pre-detention representation was sent only on 17. 1. 2005 after obtaining the signature from the detenu on that day.