IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Dated: 03/07/2006
Coram
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice P.SATHASIVAM
and
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice V.DHANAPALAN
Habeas Corpus Petition No.375 of 2006
K.Raja alias Sagaya Arokia Darmaraj Petitioner
-Vs-
State by
1. State of Tamil Nadu
Rep.by its Secretary to Government,
Prohibition and Excise Dept.,
Fort St.George,
Chennai 9.
2. The Commissioner of Police
Greater Chennai, Egmore
Chennai 8. Respondents
Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the
issuance of a Writ of Habeas Corpus to call for the records pertaining to the
detenu in proceedings No.464/BDFGISV/2005 dated 20.9.2005 passed by the 2nd
respondent herein and to set aside the same and direct the respondents to
produce him, now detained at Central Prison, Chennai before this Hon'ble Court
and to set him at liberty.
#For Petitioner : Mr.S.Samuelraja Pandian
For Respondents: Mr.Babu Muthu Meeran
Addl. Public Prosecutor
:ORDER
(Order of the Court was made by P.SATHASIVAM, J.)
The petitioner, who is the detenu and detained as a ”Goonda” as
contemplated under the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of
Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Forest Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic
Offenders, Slum Grabbers and Video Pirates Act, 1982 (Tamil Nadu Act 14 of
1982), by the impugned detention order dated 20.9.2005, challenges the same in
this Petition.
2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned
Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondents.
3. At the foremost, learned counsel for the petitioner by taking us
through the special report dated 16.9.2005 of the sponsoring authority, which
is available at page No.129 of the paper book contended that in the absence of
specific order of the learned Magistrate, extending remand for a period of 15
days on 18.8.2005 and 1.9.2005, i) first of all the information furnished by
the sponsoring authority is factually incorrect and ii) the detaining
authority without clarification or additional material acted upon and passed
the detention order, which cannot stand.
4. In the light of the above contention, we verified the special
report. In the special report, after referring the arrest of the detenu on
4.8.2005, the sponsoring authority has stated that by order dated 4.8.2005,
learned 17th Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai extended the remand
till 18.8.2005 and again extended the remand by order dated 1.9.2005 and
finally by order dated 15.9.2005 extended the remand for a further period of
15 days. i.e. from 15.9.2005 to 29.9.2 005. Though in the order dated
15.9.2005, the detenu was produced before the learned Magistrate and his
remand was extended till 29.9.200 5, there is no specific order on 18.8.2005
and 1.9.2005, as claimed by the sponsoring authority in his special report
dated 16.9.2005. We verified the order passed on 18.9.2005 and 1.9.2005.
Learned Magistrate after recording the fact that the accused was not present,
he merely adjourned the case and not extended the remand as stated in the
special report. In the absence of such orders and of the fact that based on
the special report, the detaining authority has passed the detention order, we
are of the view that the detaining authority ought to have asked those
particulars or clarified the position from the sponsoring authority.
Admittedly such recourse was not adopted by the detaining authority before
passing the order of detention. We are satisfied that in the absence of those
particulars, the detention passed based on the incorrect information by the
sponsoring authority is liable to be quashed. 5. Accordingly, the Habeas
Corpus Petition is allowed and the impugned order of detention is quashed.
The detenu is directed to be set at liberty forthwith from the custody unless
he is required in some other case or cause.
ajr
To
1. The Secretary to Government,
Prohibition and Excise Dept.,
Fort St.George,
Chennai-9.
2. The Commissioner of Police
Greater Chennai, Egmore
Chennai -8.
3. The Superintendent,
Central Prison, Chennai.
(In duplicate for communication to detenu)
4. The Joint Secretary to Government,
Public (Law and Order)
Fort St. George, Chennai-9.
5. The Public Prosecutor,
High Court, Madras.