GEETHA Vs. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is the wife of the detenu A.Muthukumar @ Kumar @ Petrol Kumar, aged 35 years, Son of Arumugam. THE detenu was branded as black marketeer and clamped with the order of detention dated 14.02.2008 under Section 3(2) (b) r/w 3 (1) of the Prevention of Black Marketing and Maintenance of Supplies of Essential Commodities Act, 1980. THEre were two adverse cases shown in the credit of the detenu viz. (1) Cr.No.448 of 2007 of Coimbatore Civil Supplies Criminal Investigation Department for the alleged offence under Section 6(4) T.N.C.S. (R.D.C.S.) order 1982 r/w 7(1) (a) (ii) of Essential Commodities Act, 1955 and (2) Cr.No.518 of 2007 of Coimbatore Civil Supplies Criminal Investigation Department for the alleged offence under Section 6(4) T.N.C.S. (R.D.C.S.) order 1982 r/w 7(1) (a) (ii) of Essential Commodities Act, 1955. Hence, the present Habeas Corpus Petition is filed.

(2.) THE backdrop of the ground case which was the basis for the order of detention is that on 09.02.2008 at about 11.00 hours, when the Sub Inspector of Police, Civil Supplies Criminal Investigation Department, Coimbatore along with his party men was keeping vigil opposite to Bhavani Kerosene Bunk, thanneer Pandal Road, Peelamedu, Coimbatore in connection with the crimes of essential commodities that at that time, they noticed a person behind a thorny bush, hiding some bags and on seeing the police party, he tried to escape in a two wheeler bearing Regn. No. TN 38 AH 7857 that immediately, the police party caught hold the detenu and on questioning, he revealed that his name is A.Muthukumar @ Kumar @ Petrol Kumar, aged 35 years, son of Arumugam and residing at D.No.315, Karupparayar Koil Street, Pappanaicken Pudur, Coimbatore that on search, it was found that 50 bags of boiled rice meant for public distribution system were concealed near a thorny bush that on enquiry, he has further admitted his guilt of smuggling rice meant for public distribution system and volunteered a confession before the witnesses, stating that he has been indulging in smuggling activities for the past two years and during August 2007, he collected ration rice from several ration card holders of Peelamedu, Singanallur, Thanneer Pandal and Avarampalayam areas, in small quantities, by paying extra money and made it as 30 bags that while smuggling the same to Kerala, in a vehicle, the Food Cell Police have intercepted the vehicle at L & T BY-Pass Road - Pollachi Road Junction that the detenu escapped and absconded for some time and returned during September 2007 that he purchased another vehicle , again collected ration rice from the ration card holders by paying extra money of Rs.1.50 per kg., for selling the same at higher rate. Hence, the case was registered in Cr.No.100 of 2008 on the file of Coimbatore Civil Supplies Criminal Investigation Department for the alleged offence under Section 6(4) of T.N.S.C. (RDCS)order 1982 r/w 7(1) (a) (ii) of E.C. Act, 1955. At the request of the sponsoring authority, the Commissioner of Police, Coimbatore had passed the impugned order of detention dated 14.02.2008.

(3.) WE have considered the submissions made on either side. Insofar as the first contention is concerned, Mr. M. Babu Muthu Meeran, learned Additional Public Prosecutor relied upon pages 50 and 51 of the booklet consisting of two statements of the persons from whom the detenu allegedly purchased the public distribution system's rice. Both of them had stated that after their personal use, they have sold the remainder public distribution system rice to the detenu by taking a sum of Re.1/- or Rs.1.50 extra per kg. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that this material would be sufficient for the detaining authority to arrive at the conclusion that there was a price hike due to the action of the detenu indulging in smuggling the public distribution system's rice to the neighbouring state. In our opinion, the said submission of the learned Additional Public Prosecutor should fail. It is one thing to say, that if any material was placed before the detaining authority to show that the detenu had purchased the public distribution system's rice directly from the officers of the Civil Supplies and thereby he had caused scarcity in the rice for public distribution to the family card holders, in such event, the card holder will be forced to go to open market to purchase the rice with the higher price, which would result in increase in the rice price. However, on the facts in this case, it is admitted that the rice meant for public distribution system had already been distributed to the public and the allegation against the detenu is that he had only purchased the rice from the ration card holders by paying Re.1/- or Rs.1.50 extra per kg and thereafter, he had taken the same to the neighbouring state for making higher profit. So long as the rice had already been distributed and ration card holder sold the same at higher price to some third parties, in our considered view such act would not be a cause for price hike in the rice in open market. There is no logic behind such a contention. Hence, we are of the considered view that the detaining authority has relied upon the materials, which has no relevance to arrive at the conclusion that by the act of the detenu the price of the rice in the open market was increased. Therefore, the order of detention must be held to be vitiated on the ground of application of mind to the irrelevant materials to arrive at the subjective satisfaction to pass the order of detention.