S MUTHULAKSHMI Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER, wife of one Selvam @ Varichoor Selvam who was detained as 'goonda' under Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1952 by the impugned proceedings of the commissioner of Madurai City dated 26-9-2005, challenges the same in this petition.

(2.) HEARD learned counsel for petitioner as well as learned Government advocate for respondents.

(3.) MR. C. M. Gunasekaran, learned counsel for the petitioner, after taking us through the grounds of detention and all other connected materials, at the foremost, contended that non-placement of affidavit filed on behalf of the detenu even before his remand in H. C. P. No. 254 of 2005 on the file of madurai Bench of Madras High Court, which contained very vital materials before the detaining authority, the Advisory Board and the Government at the t ime of approval and confirmation which is vital for passing of the impugned order. While elaborating the above contention, the learned counsel submitted that the petitioner, namely, wife of the detenu has filed H. C. P. No. 254/200 5 before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court praying for a direction to the respondents for production of her husband, namely, Selvam @ Varichoor Selvam before that Court and set him at liberty. It is stated in the affidavit filed in that petition that several false cases have been registered against her husband in various Police Stations, and that the respondents are taking steps to kill her husband through fake encounter. The cases registered against her husband are all foisted. Though her husband was arrested on 31-7-2005, he was not produced before any Court till 10 A. M. on 2-8-2005. Therefore, his detention is illegal and violative of fundamental rights guaranteed under the constitution. According to the counsel, since the same are vital materials and having bearing on the detention, the sponsoring authority ought to have placed the said affidavit before the detaining authority and also forwarded the same to the Government at the time of approval and confirmation, and failure to do so will vitiate the order of detention. He also relied on a decision in AHMED NASSAR v. STATE OF T. N. , reported in 1999 SCC (Cri) 1469; 2002 SCC (Cri) 648 in support of his contention. However, learned Government advocate submitted that the detaining authority has taken note of all these aspects as evident from para 3 of the grounds of detention, at the end of which, it has been stated that Thirumathi Muthulakshmi, wife of Selvam @ varichoor Selvam had sent a telegram on 31-7-2005 to the Commissioner of police, Madurai City (detaining authority) stating that her husband Thiru selvam @ Varichoor Selvam was illegally arrested and detained in Teppakulam police party. After referring to the same, particularly the contents of the telegram, the detaining authority has also taken note of the further fact that the investigation disclosed that Selvam @ Varichoor Selvam was arrested on 2-8-2005 in connection with B3 Teppakulam Police Station Crime No. 1232/2005 and produced before J. M. No. I, Madurai and sent for judicial custody on 3-8-2005. He also referred to the fact that in the meanwhile the said muthulakshmi also filed H. C. P. No. 254/2005 before the Madurai Bench of Madras high Court and the same was considered by Honourable Judges of Madurai Bench on 4-8-2005 and disposed of. As rightly pointed out by the learned Government advocate, first of all, the affidavit said to have been filed before the madurai Bench in H. C. P. No. 254/2005 has not been relied on before passing the detention order. On the other hand, the detaining authority had taken note of all the relevant materials, namely, the telegram dated 31-7-2005 of the petitioner sent to the detaining authority alleging that her husband was illegally arrested and detained by the police. The same complaint has been made in the said affidavit filed before the Madurai Bench. Inasmuch as the madurai Bench merely disposed of the said H. C. P with a liberty to the petitioner to agitate the ultimate detention order, the said order was also taken note of by the detaining authority. We are satisfied that even in the absence of placement of affidavit of the petitioner in H. C. P. No. 254/2005, the detaining authorit y was very well aware of the contents of the same since he considered her telegram and the ultimate order passed by the Madurai Bench. In such a circumstance, we are of the view that failure to place the affidavit filed in H. C. P. No. 254/2005 of Madurai Bench is not fatal to the impugned proceedings. Further, as rightly pointed out, when the detenu was produced before the Judicial Magistrate No. I, Madurai on 3-8-2005, he has not made any complaint against the police and after recording his statement and after satisfaction, he (J. M) remanded him till 17-8-2005. The said order is available at page 110 of the book let. It is also useful to refer the latest decision of the Supreme Court in J. ABDUL HADEEM v. STATE OF TAMIL NADU, reported in 2005 Supreme Court Cases (Cri) 160 1. The following principles laid down in para 8 are relevant: