Likening a detention order passed by an Assistant Collector at Sivakasi in Virudhunagar district to “the face of an Egyptian Sphinx bird,” the Madras High Court Bench here has disapproved of non-speaking orders passed by Executive Magistrates while ordering detention of habitual offenders in jail without conducting trial and calling for evidence.
Allowing a petition filed by a drug peddler to quash the detention order, Justice P. Devadass said: “The detention order cannot stand the test of law… The personal liberty of a person has been curtailed in a casual manner. The Assistant Collector is bound to follow the law. There cannot be a compromise with law more particularly when it is concerned with personal liberty.”
The judge pointed out that the Assistant Collector had on June 15 last directed the petitioner Murali alias Ponnuchamy, involved in many ganja cases, to execute a bond under Section 117 of Code of Criminal Procedure assuring that he shall not indulge in drug peddling at least for a year. However, two months thereafter, Rajapalayam North Police found him in possession of ganja.
Hence, the Assistant Collector, in his capacity as Sub Divisional Executive Magistrate, passed an order under Section 122 of Code of Criminal Procedure on January 27 this year to detain the petitioner in prison for over four months. Assailing the detention order, the petitioner’s counsel M. Jothibasu contended that it was bereft of reasons and grounds on which it had been passed.
Concurring with him, Mr. Justice Devadass said: “The Assistant Collector has stated that it has been found that the revision petitioner had failed to comply with the bond executed by him. More than that, nothing is there. The first respondent did not record the grounds of his satisfaction. There is no reference as to whether he had referred to documents produced by the police. The basis of satisfaction is not known.
“He cannot pass orders mechanically. He need not write an elaborate judgement like us but his orders must show at least briefly the grounds upon which he was satisfied that the person has breached the bond… The detention order must disclose grounds of proof, otherwise court cannot see what transpired in the mind of the Executive Magistrate before passing the detention order.”
