KRISHNAMURTHY CHETTIAR Vs. GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE detenu is the petitioner herein

(2.) AN order of detention was passed on 14.9.1998 by the 1st respondent viz., the secretary to Government of Tamil Nadu, under section 3(1)(i) of the conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974, on the ground that the petitioner has indulged in smuggling of goods and that therefore, it is necessary to detain the petitioner under the provisions of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, with a view to preventing him from indulging in smuggling of goods in future.

(3.) COMING to the relevancy of the document, definitely, the report of the Doctor will have a bearing upon the question of detention. It is a vital document. The Detaining Authority, may, on perusing the report of the Medical officer, come to conclusion that it is not a fit case for claiming order of detention upon the petitioner. For if the Doctor had noted some injuries upon the petitioner, that would probabalise the version of the petitioner in which case, the voluntary nature of the statement will become belied. Thus, the report of the Medical Officer being a vital documents would have certainly affected the subjective satisfaction of the Detaining Authority either way. We consider it as a vital document. Applying the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Abdul Sathan Ibrahim Manik's case, 1992 SCC (Crl) 1. We held that it is a document which would definitely influence the mind of the Detaining Authority either way, just as the absence of injuries may belie the representation of the petitioner, equally, the presence of injuries may probabalise the case of the petitioner, in which case, the subjective satisfaction of the Detaining Authority will be greatly influenced by that record. Therefore, the Medical certificate, is an important and relevant document, which will have a great impact upon the subjective satisfaction of the Detaining Authority. When that vital document was not produced before the Detaining Authority by the Sponsoring Authority and when a copy of it has not been furnished to the petitioner/detenu, it definitely affects the validity of the order of detention.