In the High Court of Judicature at Madras
Dated: 10/04/2006
Coram
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice P. SATHASIVAM
and
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice J.A.K. SAMPATHKUMAR
Habeas Corpus Petition No.83 of 2006
Kannammal .. Petitioner
-vs-
1. The State of Tamil Nadu
rep. by Secretary to Government
Prohibition and Excise Department
Fort St. George, Chennai 9.
2. The Commissioner of Police
Greater Chennai
Egmore, Chennai 8. ..Respondents
Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
praying for issuance of writ of habeas corpus as stated therein.
For petitioner : Mr. S. Sairaman
For respondents : Mr. Abudukumar Rajarathinam
Govt. Advocate (Crl.side)
..
:ORDER
(Order of the Court was made by P. SATHASIVAM,J.)
The petitioner by name Kannammal, challenges the impugned order of
detention dated 23.08.2005, detaining her son as “Goonda” under Section 3 (1)
of the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drug
Offenders, Forest Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders and Slum
Grabbers Act, 1982 (in short “Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982”).
2. Heard both sides.
3. At the foremost, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that
there is delay in disposal of the representation of the detenu. With respect
to the same, the particulars furnished by the learned Government Advocate show
that the representation was received by the Government on 23.09.2005; remarks
called for on 26.09.2005; remarks received on 05.10.2005; file submitted on
06.10.2005 and the same was dealt with by the Under Secretary and Deputy
Secretary on the same day. The Minister for Prohibition and Excise passed an
order on 07.10.2005; rejection letter was prepared on 17.10.2005; rejection
letter sent to the detenu on the same day i.e., on 17.10.2005 and served to
the detenu on 18.10.2005. Though the representation was considered and orders
was passed by the Minister on 07.10.2005, it is contended that there is no
reason to take time till 17.10.2005 for preparation of the rejection letter.
As rightly pointed out by the learned Government Advocate, 8th, 9th, 11th,
12th, 15th and 16th of October, 2005 were holidays. If we exclude the above
mentioned intervening holidays, we are of the view that there was no undue
delay at every stage. Accordingly, we reject the said contention.
4. By drawing our attention to para 4 of the grounds of detention,
learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that inasmuch as the detenu was
arrested even in respect of other two cases apart from the ground case and of
the fact that he has not moved bail application in any of those cases, the
awareness relating to imminent possibility and coming out on bail in those
cases has not been taken note of by the detaining authority and the detention
order is liable to be interfered with. We verified para 4 of the grounds of
detention. As rightly pointed out by the learned Government Advocate, the
detaining authority has shown awareness in respect of the fact that the detenu
was remanded in Crime Nos.1054/2005, 1092/2005 and 1115/05 on the file of S.11
Tambaram Police Station and also noted that he has not moved any bail
application so far. Inasmuch as awareness was their in respect of ground case
as well as 5th and 6th adverse cases and of the fact that he was remanded in
respect of the above mentioned crimes, the conclusion arrived at by the
detaining authority cannot be faulted with. Accordingly, we reject the said
contention.
5. Next contended that the detention order was not intimated to any
of the family members of the detenu. For this, learned Government Advocate
has produced the file, which shows that mother of the detenu , by name,
Kannammal was intimated on 24.08.2005 i.e., on the next day regarding the
passing of detention order. Her acknowledgment was attested by two witnesses.
Accordingly, we reject the said contention.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner after taking us through page 1
09 of the paper book contended that there is a defect in the translation. In
the light of the said contention, we verified the English and Tamil translated
version. We are satisfied that there is no defect as pointed out.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner next contended that the
postmortem certificate, which is available at page 58 of the paper book is not
legible and clean copy has not been furnished. For this, learned Government
Advocate pointed out that the said certificate relates to first adverse case
and secondly the first adverse case is at the trial stage, since charge sheet
has already been filed. Even otherwise, he contended that the document
available at page 58 is neither relied on or referred to by the detaining
authority. In such circumstances, we reject the said contention also.
8. Finally, counsel for the petitioner submitted that arrest report
and arrest memo did not contain the Crime No.1115 of 2005 and there is no such
report or memo in respect of the other two crime numbers. According to the
learned counsel, in the absence of the same, the detention order is liable to
be interfered with. We are unable to accept the said contention, because the
detenu was arrested only in respect of Crime No.1115 of 2005, which relates to
ground case and thereafter, on the basis of his confession statement, in the
5th and 6th adverse cases he was arrayed as an accused. On going through the
entire confession statement of the detenu, other connected documents, such as,
remand order of the learned Magistrate and the narration of facts as well as
the ultimate conclusion arrived at by the detaining authority in the grounds
of detention, we are unable to accept the said contention also.
In the light of what is stated above, we do not find any valid ground
for interference. Accordingly, this petition is dismissed.
kh
To
1. The Secretary to Government
State of Tamil Nadu
Prohibition and Excise Department
Fort St. George, Chennai 9.
2. The Commissioner of Police
Greater Chennai
Egmore, Chennai 8.