Full Judgment
A.K. Rajan, J.
1. The wife of the detenu is the petitioner herein.
2. The detenu was detained under the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982, for having come to the adverse notice of the detaining authority in three adverse cases under Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act, apart from the ground case in Crime No. 402 of 2003.
3. On the basis of the materials furnished, the detaining authority arrived at the subjective satisfaction that the detention of the detenu is necessary in order to protect the public order and health. Therefore, the detention order under Section 3(1) of the Act has been passed. Aggrieved against the detention order, the present writ petition has been filed.
4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the detention order is liable to be quashed on the ground that the relatives of the detenu have not been informed about the detention. On a perusal of the file, it is seen that the relatives of the detenu have been informed immediately after the detention.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner next submitted that the representation made on behalf of the detenu has not been considered promptly and there is a delay in considering the representation. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that there is no delay in considering the representation; he has also furnished the following particulars of the date on which the representation was considered:
Order of Detention Dated : 17.04.2003 Representation Dated : 30.04.2003 Representation Received Dated : 05.05.2003 Remark called on dated : 06.05.2003 Reminder dated : NilRemarks received on dated : 26.05.2003 File Submitted on dated : 27.05.2003 Under Secretary dated : 28.05.2003 Additional/Deputy Secretary Dated : 28.05.2003 Minister for Law dated : 29.05.2003 Rejected : 02.06.2003 Rejection letter send to theSuperintendent Central Prison forservice on : 03.06.2003 Rejection letter served on : 04,06.2003 Collectorate: Representation received fromGovernment/Central Prison : 13.05.2003 Parawar Remarks called for fromSponsoring Authority : 15.05.2003 Remarks received from sponsoringAuthority : 19.05.2003 Report sent to Government : 21.05.2003 Intimation to relatives dated : 19.04.2003 Served on dated : Nil
A perusal of the above dates would show that there is no delay in considering the representation. Though there is some delay in communication, that has been explained and that cannot be said to be delay in consideration of representation. Therefore, this ground is not acceptable.
6. The learned counsel also submitted that the detenu was kept under illegal custody from 7.04.2003 and this was stated in the representation and the detenu has stated this fact to the Magistrate when he was produced for remand. A perusal of the remand report and the remand order show that at the time of remand, the detenu has not made any complaint to the Magistrate. Therefore this argument of the learned counsel is not acceptable.
7. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the detenu infact complaint to the Magistrate and the Magistrate had also recorded his complaint in the remand order itself; but, in the copy of the order furnished to the detenu, such a complaint is not recorded; therefore, he wanted a certified copy of the said order. In this circumstances, we have ordered an affidavit to be filed to that effect. An affidavit has also been filed. In that, it has not been reiterated. But, in the affidavit, it is stated that the counsel had made such a representation only on the instruction given by the client and he also expressed regret for having made such a representation. The Government and the Collectorate are maintaining a file which contains the Xerox copies of the orders passed by the Court. The remanded order is one such Xerox copy which contains the seal of the court and also the signature of the Officer who authenticated that order. In this circumstances, there is no reason to doubt the veracity of the copies furnished. In that remand order, it is not stated that the detenu had made any complaint. Therefore, the representation made on behalf of the petitioner on the basis of the instruction given by the petitioner is contrary to facts and it is not true. The counsel must ascertain and satisfy himself that any representation made on a question of fact is true especially when serious allegations doubting the veracity of the documents furnished by the authorities are made.
8. The learned counsel next submitted that the detenu asked for the copy of the bail order and that was not furnished; the non-furnishing of the bail order vitiates the detention order. In support of his contention, he relied on a Judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in P. Muthuswamy v. State, represented by the Secretary to Government, etc., and Anr. 2000 (1) LW (Cri) 27. The bail order is neither a document relied upon nor referred to in the detention order. Hence, the non-supply of this order does not affect the validity of the detention. Hence, this argument of the learned counsel is also not tenable.
9. The detention order only refers to the imminent possibility of the detenu coming out on bail by filing bail application again; it also refers to the dismissal of the earlier bail application on 16.04.2003. The order and bail application does not contain any vital fact, failure to take into account of which would vitiate the detention order itself. In such circumstances, the non furnishing of the copy of the bail order does not in any way affect the validity of the continuation of detention.
10. The learned counsel next submitted that the second representation has not been considered promptly. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that even the second representation has been considered without delay and had furnished the following particulars of dates.
Order of Detention Dated : 17.04.2003 Representation Dated : 28.05.2003 Representation Received Dated : 29.05.2003 Remark called on dated : 30.05.2003 Reminder dated : 16.06.2003 Remarks received on dated : 16.06.2003 File Submitted on dated : 17.06.2003 Under Secretary dated : 17.06.2003 Additional/Deputy Secretary Dated : 18.06.2003 Minister for Law dated : 18.06.2003 Rejected : 23.06.2003 Rejection letter send to theSuperintendent Central Prison forservice on : 24.06.2003 Rejection letter served on : 26.06.2003 Collectorate:Representation received fromGovernment/Central Prison : 03.06.2003 Parawar Remarks called for fromSponsoring Authority : 04.06.2003 Remarks received from sponsoringAuthority : 08.06.2003 Report sent to Government : 09.06.2003 Intimation to relatives dated : NilServed on dated : Nil
A perusal of the above dates shows even the second representation has been considered without delay and therefore, this argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner is also not acceptable.
11. The learned counsel nex submitted that the first representation sent by him was received by the Government on 3.5.2003, but it is stated that the representation was received only on 5.5.2003; and hence the dates given by the respondent does not reflect the true facts. In support of that argument, he referred to the acknowledgement card received by the petitioner. It is to be seen that 3.5.2003 was a Saturday and the Office of the first respondent has received on that day in Tapal Section. 4th May,2003, being Sunday, it would have been sent to the concerned department only on 5th May, 2003. That is the reason why, in the particulars of dates furnished by respondents, it is stated that the representation was received by the Government on 5.5.2003. Therefore, there is no misrepresentation or mistake in the dates furnished by the Government. The Government has no malafides against the detenu and they need not give wrong dates to this court and in fact, they have not given any wrong statement to the Court. It is not proper on the part of the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the detenu to make such wild allegations without any responsibility. Such irresponsible representation shall not be made by the counsel appear in Court.
12. In view of the seriousness of the allegations made by the counsel for the petitioner, we directed the petitioner's counsel to file an affidavit and also to face the consequences of filing false affidavits. But, in the affidavit filed by the counsel for the petitioner, he has not reiterated the same. Further he regretted for having made such allegations.
13. In view of the fact that the learned counsel representing the counsel on record is an inexperienced junior, and that he had also apologised for his representation and conduct, we take a lenient view and hence do not propose to take any further action.
14. For the aforesaid reasons, we do not find any reason by which the detention order gets vitiated. In the circumstances, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed and hence dismissed.