MEIYAPPAN Vs. SECRETARY TO GOVT OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner challenges a detention order passed against him dated 4-9-1998 by the District Magistrate and District Collector, Pudukkottai District, detailing him under the provisions of Section 3(2) of the National Security Act, 1980 with a view to preventing him from acting prejudicial to the maintenance of the public order. The order has been executed on the next day i.e. on 5-9-1998. Amongst the grounds relied on, it is suggested that the Sub-Inspector of Police, Kottaipattinam, came to know from a complaint filed by the Village Administrative Officer on 5-8-1998 that four persons were found in a suspicious manner near the thorny shrubs in front of Pillaiyar temple in south Pudukudi Village, Pudukottai District. These four persons were Kannan, Murugan, Meiyappan (the petitioner herein) and Balasundaram alias Sundaram. According to this report, the concerned Police Officer came to know that these persons were engaged in supplying the essential commodities viz., diesel, engine oil, medicines, etc. clandestinely to the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Ealum of Sri Lanka. The report of the said Village Administrative Officer was recorded in the General Diary and the Sub-Inspector of Police, Kottaipattinam, with his police party, proceeded to south Pudukudi village to arrest the aforesaid suspected persons. On seeing the police duty, they tried to espace. However, the Sub- Inspector of Police managed and tried to apprehend them with the assistance of the Police personnel. One of them, viz. Meiyappan (the petitioner herein) took out a bomb which was hideen in his hip and shouted that if anybody tried to apprehend them, they all would be burnt. The members of the General Public, who were witnessing the scene, ran away from the spot and fled, because of fear. However, all these persons were overpowered by the police party and it was found that they were in possession of gelatine bombs with wick and cigar lighter. A further enquiry was made wherein, Meiyappan, the petitioner herein, gave a confessional statement owning up the responsibilities. Amongst the other reasons, it is pointed out that the further investigation disclosed that since there was no profit in the fishing profession, these four persons including Meiyappan had, in order to amass huge money, started supplying diesel, petrol and medicines to the L.T.T.E. Militants of Sri Lanka which fetched huge gains to them. Amongst the grounds, it is also pointed out that on confession, the Sub-Inspector of Police seized five litres of engine oil, 75 litres of diesel, life saving drugs, 16 bottles of saline solution, disposable syringes, bandage clothes, plaster cotton rolls as also explosives viz. 44 numbers of gelatine sticks, 50 Numbers ofElectric Detonators, 10 pieces of safety fuse and 46 Numbers of ordinary (Non-electrical) detonators each measuring about 3.5 cms. which were packed in three card board boxes. It has also been mentioned that one of these four persons viz., Balalsundaram alias Sundram was previously involved in the clandestine activities for which a case has been also registered for offences punishable under Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code. It is then mentioned that these four persons were in the habit of supplying and helping the illegal activities of the L.T.T.E. of Sri Lanka. It appears from the grounds that they were all arrested and were put before the Judicial Magistrate, Aranthangi, who remanded them and eventually all these persons were put in the Central Prison, Tiruchirappalli. It has also come with the grounds that the explosives were sent for the examination and for defusing to Tamil Nadu Commando School. It is more or less on this basis that the orders of detention were passed against the four persons. We are concerned with the petitioner Meiyapan in this petition.

(2.) The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner raised several points in support of the Petition and contended that firstly, there has been delay in consideration of the representation dated 6-10-1998 and on that count, the right of the petitioner under Art. 22(5) of the Constitution of India has been defeated. His second submission is to the effect that though there is a reference to a General Diary of the concerned Police Station being filled up before the alleged raid took place, the extract of the said Diary was not placed before the detaining authority, and thus, the detaining authority has passed the order without looking into the said General Diary entry. The learned Counsel further urged that though in his representation, the said General Diary was sought for, the copy has not been supplied to the detenu and as such, the detenu has suffered inasmuch as he has not been able to take an effective representation to suggest that there was, in fact, nothing in the General Diary and the whole First Information Report was a foisted and false one.

(3.) As against this, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor pointed out that there is no question of any delay in the consideration of the representation. As regards the contention of non- supply of copy of the entry made in the General Diary, the learned Public Prosecutor suggests that that document was not placed before the detaining authority and was not 'a relied on document' at all and the reference to that document is merely a casual reference to describe the activity prior to the First Information Report. According to the Public Prosecutor, nothing would depend upon the said extract in the General Diary of the Police Station and, therefore, there was no necessity whatsoever to supply the copy of the accused.