VIJAYALAKSHMI Vs. SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT FOOD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner Vijayalakshmi, wife of the detenu by name Ayyappan, who was detained as a "black Marketeer" as contemplated under Section 3 (2) (a) of the Prevention of Black Marketing and Maintenance of Supplies of Essential Commodities Act, 1980, by the impugned detention order dated 18. 07. 2006, challenges the same in this Petition.

(2.) HEARD learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondents 1 and 2 and Mr. P. Kumaresan, learned Additional Central Government Standing Counsel for the third respondent.

(3.) MR. V. Parthiban, learned counsel for the petitioner at the foremost submitted that inasmuch as crime number available only at the time of registering the First Information Report found a place in the document prepared much earlier, in the absence of clarification of the said vital error by the detaining authority, his ultimate detention order is liable to be quashed. Elaborating the above argument, learned counsel for the petitioner has brought to our notice that the arrest memo, which is available at page 44 of the paper book contains Crime No. 388 of 2006 and seizure mahazar, which is available at page 42 of the paper book also contains Crime No. 388 of 2006. It is pointed out that the above documents were allegedly prepared earlier to registering the case with crime number. In such circumstances, in the absence of clarification by the authority concerned about the vital error, the detention order is to be interfered with. We verified both the documents as well as the time of arrest and preparation of those documents. In the counter affidavit, particularly in para 5, the District Collector, Theni / detaining authority has stated, "the crime number is ascertained over phone from the Unit at 07. 15 hours. There is no prejudice is caused to the detenu in connection with the crime numbers found in the documents and his fundamental right is not affected in any manner. " In view of the above explanation that the crime number was ascertained over phone at the time of preparation of arrest memo and seizure mahazar, the contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is liable to be rejected.