NIRMALA Vs. GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is the wife of the detenu and challenging the impugned order of detention dtd. 2/12/2018, passed by the second respondent, under Sec. 3(1) read with 3(2)(a) of the Prevention of Black Marketing and Maintenance of Supplies of Essential Commodities Act 1980, (Central Act 7 of 1980), in and by which, her husband, the detenu herein has been branded as a "Black Marketer" came forward to file the present habeas corpus petition. A perusal of grounds of detention order dtd. 2/12/2018 would disclose that the detenu came to adverse notice in the following seven cases:

(2.) It is further alleged in the grounds of detention that on 6/8/2018, at about 13.40 hours, when the Sub Inspector of Police, Civil Supplies Criminal Investigation Department (CSCID), Erode unit received information about smuggling of Public Distribution System rice, immediately he proceeded to Gandhi Nagar area, Kanirowtherkulam, Veerappanchatram, Erode Taluk along with police party and conducted surveillance. At that time, the Sub Inspector of Police found two Omni vans parked near the Madurai Veeran Kovil on Gandhi Nagar and some persons were unloading piled up bags. On suspicion, the Sub-Inspector of Police rushed to the spot along with the police party and on seeing the police party, some of them tried to flee away from the scene of occurrence and some of them were caught whose names were later known as Anthiyur Prabhu, Prakash and Gobi. They revealed that the escaped persons included the detenu also. The contra band of 21 bags of rice meant for Public Distribution System weighing 50 kgs, were also seized from the spot. The arrested accused had also voluntarily come forward to give confession statements and based on the admissible portion of the confession statements, incriminating articles were seized. In this regard, case in Crime No. 91 of 2018 was registered by Civil Supplies Unit, Erode under Sec. 6(4) of TNSC (RDCS) Order, 1982 read with 8(1) a (ii) Essential Commodities Act, 1955 and the arrested persons were produced before the Court and were remanded to Judicial Custody. Subsequently, to trace the escaped persons, the surveillance was mounted and the detenu was caught at 13.00 hours, on 8/11/2018 and he voluntarily came forward to give confession statement, in and by which, he disclosed certain material facts. The detenu was subsequently arrested in connection with all the cases and produced before the Judicial Magistrate No.3, Erode on 8/11/2018 and was ordered to be remanded in the Judicial custody till 20/11/2018. The Detaining Authority on arriving at the subjective satisfaction, that the activities of the detenu in purchasing the Public Distribution System rice, illegally smuggling it and selling it in the black market amounts to hoarding of the rice meant for Public Distribution System and his activities might endanger social security and stability and pose an imminent threat to social order and having derived such a subjective satisfaction, clamped the impugned order of detention, branding him as a ''Black Marketer'' and detained him under Prevention of Black Marketing and Maintenance of Supplies of Essential Commodities Act 1980. Challenging the legality of the same, the present habeas corpus petition is filed.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn the attention of this Court to paragraph no. 5 of the detention order. Admittedly, the detenu is in custody, in connection with all the adverse cases as well as the ground case and the Detaining Authority in order to arrive at the subjective satisfaction as to the imminent possibility of the detenu coming out on bail and indulging in illegal activities has placed reliance on the bail order of the co-accused in Cr.M.P. No. 4493 of 2018 dtd. 10/9/2018 and also drawn the attention of the Court to page nos. 372 and 373 of the booklet and would submit that admittedly, in respect of the said case, the accused were not having any antecedents and taking into consideration the quantum of seizure and the period in incarceration undergone by the accused, they were enlarged on bail and in the case on hand, admittedly, the detenu had very many cases by way of antecedents and as there is no imminent possibility of coming out on bail in all cases and indulging in the above said activities which might endanger social security and stability, prays for quashment of the impugned order of detention.