NAVANEETHA KRISHNAN Vs. SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT FOOD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is the son-in-law of the detenu by name Sankarraj, S/o Subba Naicker, who has been branded as 'Black Marketeer' and detained under Section 3(2)(a) read with Section 3(1) of the Prevention of Black Marketing and Maintenance of Supplies of Essential Commodities Act, 1980 (Central Act 7 of 1980) in and by the proceedings dated 23.02.2008 passed by the second respondent. THE said order is under challenge in this petition.

(2.) THE detention order came to made under the following circumstances: (i) On 25.12.2007 at about 5.30 hours, while the Sub Inspector of Police, CSCID, Virudhunagar and his party as well as the Special Tahsildar, Flying Squad, Virudhunagar and his team conducted joint raid in and around Aruppukkottai, they intercepted a Ashok Leyland Lorry bearing Regn.No.TN 39 Y 8544 near Jeyavilas weigh bridge on Madurai-Tuticorin bye-pass road in Aruppukkotai and checked and detected 240 bags of PDS boiled rice, each weighing 50 kgs. THE lorry and the rice bags were seized under the cover of mahazar. THE lorry driver Thiru.A.Maideen, S/o Aneefa was arrested and he gave a confessional statement in the presence of witnesses. In the confessional statement, he has stated that the detenu had loaded the rice bags with the assistance of loadmen at tank area in Thisayanvilai in Tirunelveli District. A case in Cr.No.922 of 2007 under Section 6(4) of TNSC (RDCS) Order, 1982 r/w Section 7(1)a(ii) of EC Act, 1955 was registered on the file of Virudhunagar CSCID police. (ii) On 10.2.2008 at about 16.15 hours, the detenu was arrested and he also gave a confessional statement in the presence of witnesses. He was produced before the Judicial Magistrate, Aruppukkottai and remanded to judicial custody upto 22.2.2008 and was lodged in Central Prison, Madurai. THE said remand was extended upto 7.3.2008. As the investigation revealed that the detenu had purchased the boiled rice meant for public distribution system from the cardholders and made attempts to smuggle the same for selling in black market for more pecuniary gain and that he had acted against the public distribution system, which is aimed to ensure supply of essential commodities at affordable price to the persons living below poverty line, the detaining authority namely, the District Magistrate and District Collector, Virudhunagar was satisfied that in order to curb the anti-social elements who illegally divert rice meant for public distribution system to the open market and that he found the detenu indulging in such activities prejudicial to the maintenance of supplies of essential commodities under the public distribution system to family cardholders, by the impugned detention order dated 23.2.2008, the detenu was detained.

(3.) SO far as the first contention relating to the non furnishing of the confessional statement of the lorry driver is concerned, we are of the considered view that the detention order was not passed solely on the basis of the confessional statement of Thiru.A.Maideen, the driver of the lorry. In page 28 of the booklet, the statement of one P.Murugesh is enclosed. In page 30, the statement of one Basheer Ahmed is enclosed and in page 31, the statement of one Madurai Veeran is enclosed. In all these statements, the involvement of the detenu in smuggling activities have been spoken. The detaining authority had considered the entire materials and arrived at the satisfaction that the detenu indulged in activities prejudicial to the maintenance of supplies of essential commodities under the public distribution system to family cardholders. Therefore, the detaining authority has only referred the fact that the confessional statement of the lorry driver was also obtained. In our considered view, the failure on the part of the detaining authority to supply the said confessional statement along with the grounds of detention to the detenu would not vitiate the order of detention. It appears that the detenu had made a request for supply of the said document on 11.3.2008 and the same was supplied on 2.4.2008, of course, after the Advisory Board had met. The judgment in Dhanushu @ Vijay's case reported in (2007) 2 MLJ (Crl) 1467 (supra) relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner relates to a case of relied upon document and only under the said circumstances, the Division Bench of this Court came to the conclusion that when a notification was heavily relied upon by the detaining authority, the detaining authority had failed to supply the same despite the request made in the representation and such notification was supplied only on 2.4.2007, by which date the Advisory Board had already met and on the said ground, the detention order was quashed. In our considered view, the said judgment is not applicable to the facts of the present case, as the confessional statement is not the only document which was relied upon by the detaining authority as contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner and while considering the grounds of detention, the detaining authority has merely referred to the confessional statement and therefore we reject the first contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner.