IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 20/11/2003
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.K. MISRA
and
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.V. MASILAMANI
H.C.P.NO.938 OF 2003
Joseph @ Joe,
S/o. John .. Petitioner
-Vs-
1. The Secretary to Govt.,
of Tamil Nadu,
Prohibition & Excise Department,
Fort St. George, Chennai 9.
2. The Commissioner of Police,
Greater Chennai,
Chennai 600 008. .. Respondents
Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the
issuance of Writ of Habeas Corpus as stated therein.
For Petitioner : Mr.R. Balakrishnan
For Respondents : Mr.M.K. Subramanian
Government Advocate
(Criminal Side)
:O R D E R
(The order of the Court was made by P.K.MISRA, J)
Heard Mr.R. Balakrishnan for the petitioner and Mr.M.K. Subramanian,
Government Advocate for the respondents.
2. The order of preventive detention dated 31.1.2003 passed by the
Commissioner of Police, Greater Chennai, under Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 19 82 is
being challenged in the present Habeas Corpus Petition.
3. The first contention raised by the learned counsel for the
petitioner is that in the order of detention it is indicated that the Sub
Inspector of Police had arrested the detenu on the date of incident and again
he has been arrested by the Inspector of Police. According to the learned
counsel for the petitioner this is a material discrepancy and this shows
non-application of mind.
4. We have carefully gone through the order of the detention
as well as the connected papers. The record shows that on receiving
information, the Sub-Inspector of Police along with policemen had gone to the
place of occurrence and the detenu had tried to assault the police party.
Thereafter the police party apprehended the detenu and subsequently he was
produced before the Inspector of Police, when he was shown to be formally
arrested. In such view of the matter, we do not find any material discrepancy
in this aspect.
5. The second contention of the learned counsel for the
petitioner is to the effect that the ground case occurred in 2003, whereas the
adverse cases relied upon by the detaining authority were of the year 2001 and
2002, and therefore, there is no reasonable nexus between the earlier acts and
the subsequent ground case. This submission is again misconceived.
6. On going through the records, we find that the first
adverse case had been committed in March,2001 and five other adverse cases
were alleged to have been committed in 2002, and the present occurrence, on
the basis of which he was placed under preventive detention, took place on
23.1.2003. On going through these dates of incident, it cannot be said that
there is no reasonable nexus between the earlier cases and the subsequent
ground case.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also submitted that there
is discrepancy in the statement given by the affected witness when compared to
the statement found in the F.I.R.. The order of detention is based on the
subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority. Such order is not to be
objectively assessed by the High Court while deciding the matter in a petition
for Habeas Corpus. Discrepancy, if any, may be considered at the time of
trial, but while considering the question of validity of detention, the High
Court cannot shift materials to find fault with the order of detention.
8. The next contention of the petitioner is regarding the alleged
delay in disposal of the representation. We find that representation dated
26.5.2003 was disposed of on 10.6.2003. The dates furnished would indicate
that the authorities have dealt with the matter with promptitude at every
stage and there is no unreasonable delay at any stage.
9. For the aforesaid reasons, the writ of Habeas Corpus is dismissed.
Index : Yes
Internet : Yes
dpk
To
1. The State of Tamil Nadu,
rep. by its Secretary,
Prohibition & Excise Department,
Fort St. George, Chennai 9.
2. The Commissioner of Police,
Greater Chennai,
Chennai 600 008.
3. The Superintendent,
Central Prison, Chennai.
4. The Joint Secretary to Government,
Public (Law & Order),
Fort St. George,
Chennai 9.
5. The Public Prosecutor,
High Court,
Madras.