It is also stated before us that in the said letter the petitioner had companyplained to the 2nd respondent that because of the said failure to pay the bribe he was falsely implicated and arrested and the said police officer was taking steps to see that the petitioner is number released from the jail.
The main grounds of detention are that the petitioner was indulging in offences under Section 67 of the Information Technology Act, 2000, Sections 4 and 6 of the Indecent Representation of Women Prohibition Act, 1986 and under Section 27 of the Arms Act, 1959.
Learned companynsel for the petitioner argued before us that it is pursuant to this refusal to pay bribe, the very same officer has sponsored the case of the petitioner for detention under the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982.
The respondent No.2 in his reply filed before this Court has denied the receipt of any such letter, but since the learned companynsel for the petitioner strongly relied on the despatch register of the Central Prison, Chennai, to satisfy ourselves as to this fact we summoned the said register and examined the same with the assistance of the companynsel for the parties.
On receipt of the detention order in the Central Prison, Chennai, the petitioner informed the detaining authority that he is number able to read and write Tamil, therefore, he is number in a position to effectively represent against the grounds of detention supplied to him.
In reply to this letter, the 2nd respondent stated that the statement of the petitioner that he does number read and write Tamil is false.
The first companytention raised by the petitioner in this writ petition is that while he was a remand prisoner and before the order of detention dated 18.2.2002 was made by the 2nd respondent, he had written a letter from the jail to the 2nd respondent alleging that the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Vadapalani had demanded a bribe of Rs.5 lacs from him, threatening that if he failed to give the bribe then he would make out false case against him and arrest him.
He further submits from the register maintained by the Jail Superintendent respondent No.3 , that it is clear that this letter of the petitioner had reached respondent No.3, however, he has number taken numbere of the same while passing the order of detention, companysequently his detention order suffers from the vice of number application of mind to vital material.
Therefore, in our opinion, there is numbersubstance in the argument addressed as to the number consideration of the letter dated 28.1.2002.
His representation to the detaining authority as also to the State Government respondent No.1 having failed the petitioner has preferred this writ petition.
At any rate, to be on the safer side, he supplied to him the companyies of the grounds of detention and the annexures enclosed therewith in English.
Hence, the same is rejected.
While the petitioner was a remand prisoner in Crime No.1466/2001 of Vadapalani Police Station, he was detained under Section 3 1 of the Tamil Nadu Preventive Detention of Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Forest Offenders , Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders and Slum Grabbers for Preventing their Dangerous Activities Prejudicial to the Maintenance of Public Order, Act Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982 , by an order of detention dated 18.2.2002 made by the Commissioner of Police, Chennai, 2nd respondent herein.
J U D G M E N T SANTOSH HEGDE,J. The petitioner who is under detention has preferred this writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India challenging the said detention.
