CHANDRAN Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, HOME, PROHIBITION & EXCISE, FORT ST. GEORGE, CHENNAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, who is the brother of the detenu, has challenged the order of detention made in D.O. 77/97-C2, dated 29.7.1997, passed by the second respondent, detaining the detenu in exercise of the powers conferred on the second respondent under sub-section (1) of Sec. 3 of the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982, with a view to prevent her from indulging in an activity, prejudicial to the maintenance of public order and public health.

(2.) Though, several contentions were raised, the learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. S. Shanmugavelayuthan confined his submission only to the point that the copy of the bail application and the order passed thereunder and the remand extension order are pasted subsequently after the grounds of detention. In the grounds of detention also, even though there is mention and reference to the effect that "his remand was extended till 8.8.1997", there is a correction in ink, i.e. the word "his" and the date "8" have been filled up un-initialled, which were earlier left blank.

(3.) The learned Public Prosecutor contended in view of para 7 of the counter that though the pages 21 and 22 have been pasted in the paper book, they have been verified by, the detaining authority before passing the order and denied that they were subsequently inserted and the corrections were only due to omission in typing and that the same were filled up by the detaining authority before passing the order.