DHANALAKSHMI Vs. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE order of detention dated 4. 4. 2007 passed by the first respondent herein in CPO/tc/is/nsa/do no. 7/2007 against one Raju, son of Palani @ Palani Chettiyar, in exercise of the powers conferred under Section 3 of the National Security Act, 1980 (Central Act, 65 of 1980) read with the orders issued by the government in G. O. Ms. No. 73 Public (Law and Order (F-Department dated 11. 1. 2007 under sub-section (3) of Section 3 of the said act, is being challenged in this petition by the wife of the said Raju, seeking to issue writ of habeas corpus calling for the records in connection with the detention order made in CPO/tc/is/nsa/d. O. No. 7/2007 dated 4. 4. 2007 and to quash the same and to direct the respondents to produce the detenu raju, now detained in Central Prison, tiruchirapalli and set him at liberty.

(2.) THE ground case, on the basis of which the detaining authority viz. , the commissioner of Police, Tiruchirappalli City, passed the impugned detention order is that one Arulseelan was found in a suspicious manner and a sum of Rs. 10,00,000 was recovered. He could not account for possession of such amount, nor he could account for his presence at the place in the early morning and also he failed to produce valid document. Thereafter, he was arrested and his confession statement was recorded. In the confession, he stated that one Ragulan @ Antony, a known LTTE Cadre, procuring and smuggling explosive materials and other essential commodities from the soil of India to Sri Lanka, had given him the money with an instruction to hand over the same to a person in Madurai for procuring iron balls (for being used to make explosives and bombs ). The said Arulseelan further confessed that he had already given rs. 10,00,000 on a previous occasion to a person in Madurai as instructed by Ragulan @ Antony, to procure iron balls for LTTE, though he was aware that the organisation was banned in India. Later, it was known that the amount of Rs. 10,00,000 was brought by one of the accused Pradheepan @ Thillai @ Dheepan, who received the amount from another accused Idayathullah of Chennai and handed over to Ragulan @ antony at the house of Arulseelan.

(3.) THE learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, inviting our attention to the order of detention, which has been passed by the Commissioner of police under Section 3 (3) of the Act, contends that the impugned order of detention was passed on the ground that the detenu had acted in a manner prejudicial to the security of the State, the relations of India with foreign country and maintenance of public order. The act of prejudicial to the relations of India with foreign country attracts Section 3 (1) of the Act, but not Section 3 (2) or 3 (3) of the Act. It is argued that as per Section 3 of the Act, the power to detain the detenu from acting in a manner prejudicial to the relationship of india with a foreign country, under the Act, is vested only with the Central Government or the State Government under Section 3 (1)and (2) of the Act, but not with the detaining authority, viz. , the Commissioner of police, as the Commissioner of Police has not been delegated with such power to deal with matters coming within the scope of section 3 (1) of the Act.