SUMAN Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Two questions of law have been framed by the Division Bench which according to the learned Judges required consideration by a Full Bench. The two questions are as follows :

(2.) The Commissioner of Police, Madras City passed an order of detention under section 3(1) of the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drug-offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders and Slum Grabbers Act, 1982 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) directing that the petitioner be detained and kept in custody in the Central Prison, Madras. The petitioner was served with the grounds of detention and other documents on 25-5-1985. The order of detention was confirmed by the State Government on 30-5-1985. The petitioner forwarded a representation dated 7-6-1985 to the State Government which was received by the State Government on 10-6-1985. In this representation at the end of paragraph 5, the petitioner asked for permission to have the assistance of an advocate to be present before the Advisory Board. The request made to the State Government is contained in the following words :

(3.) The second question 'whether the confessional statement made by the detenu to the police officer is admissible in cases of detention under a Preventive Detention Act such as Tamil Nadu Act No. 14 of 1982' arises in the following circumstances. The case of the petitioner was that he was conversant with 'Thulu' which has no script and he knows reading and writing Hindi only. Therefore, since he does not know Tamil or English, the grounds of detention not having been supplied in the language which he knows, there was violation of Art. 22(5) of the Constitution of India. Six circumstances were relied upon before the Division Bench on behalf of the respondents in support of the proposition that the grounds of detention have been duly communicated to the petitioner and that he understood Tamil and English. These circumstances were : (1) The petitioner was born in Tamil Nadu. (2) He was educated in Madras and studied in Church Park Convent, Adayar Beasant Theosophical High School, Mambalam Ramakrishna High School and P.U.C. in Pachayappas College. (3) He has acted as a hero in a number of Tamil talkie films. (4) His written representation is in English and signed by the petitioner in English. (5) Search list is signed by him in English and during the search he did not say that he did not know Tamil and (6) His confessional statement is reduced in Tamil and made to the police authorities. Though it was conceded by the learned Advocate General before the Bench that the confessional statement was not considered by the detaining authority and indeed it is now common ground that it was not considered, Division Bench took the view that the detenu's confessional statement is one among the circumstances relied on by the Advocate General in bringing the case within the exception envisaged in Prakash Chandra Mehta v. Commr., and Secretary, Govt. of Kerala, 1985 SCC (Cri) 322. Since the question as to whether the confessional statement was admissible in evidence was already referred to the Full Bench in W.P. No. 351 of 1985 by another Bench, the consideration of the said question had to be deferred till an authoritative pronouncement is made by the Full Bench. The Division Bench observed that even the examination of the petitioner's contention that the detaining authority had before it inadmissible piece of evidence and that it was consequently influenced by extraneous matter depends upon the inadmissibility or otherwise of the confessional statement. This is how the second question has been referred for consideration.