BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 22/02/2007 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.CHOCKALINGAM AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.RAJASURIA H.C.P.(MD) No.2 of 2007 M.Rani .. Petitioner vs 1.State of Tamil Nadu, rep. by The Secretary to Government Department of Excise and Prohibition Secretariat, Fort St. George Chennai 600 009. 2.The District Collector and District Magistrate Tiruchirappalli District Tiruchirappalli 3.The Inspector of Police Manapparai Police Station Manapparai Sub-Division Tiruchirappalli District .. Respondents Habeas Corpus petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India calling for the records of the second respondent passed in Cr.M.P.No.57 of 2006 dated 6.8.2006 and set aside the order of detention dated 6.8.2006 and direct the respondents to produce the detenu Muthuvel, Son of Karuppiah before this Court now confined in the Central Prison, Tiruchirappalli, as a Boot-legger and set him at liberty. !For Petitioner ... Mr.T.M.Madasamy ^For Respondents ... Mr.S.P.Samuel Raj, Additional Public Prosecutor :ORDER
Challenging an order of detention passed by the first respondent dated
6.8.2006, whereby the petitioner’s husband Muthuvel, was termed as Boot-legger,
the wife has brought forth this petition.
2.The order under challenge is perused. It is seen from the impugned
order that there were six ground cases registered against the detenu all
relating to prohibition offences. On the strength of the recommendation made by
the sponsoring authority, the order came to be passed. According to the
detaining authority, the activities of the detenu were prejudicial to the
maintenance of public order and public health. Now, the said order is sought to
be assailed by the petitioner stating that there are discrepancies found.
3.The learned Counsel for the petitioner would submit that as could be
seen, in three of the cases, the detenu was fined, and he also paid the fine of
Rs.500/- in each case; but, the order would read that there was a fine of
Rs.750/- in one case, and thus, there was a discrepancy found. The learned
Counsel would further add that in the instant case, one of the witnesses by name
Muthusami, has given a statement under Sec.161 of Cr.P.C. to the police that on
10.7.2006, he had the arrack supplied by the detenu; that the detenu was not
present in the arrack shop on the very day; that at that time, he was actually
present before the Criminal Court, when he was fined; that he paid the fine
amount also; and that under the circumstances, the detenu could not have been in
his arrack shop as stated in the statement which was relied on by the authority.
The learned Counsel would further add that the detaining authority has pointed
out that he was aware that the detenu was in remand in connection with
Manapparai Police Station Crime No.310/2006 and has not moved for bail; but,
factually, he moved bail application on 3.8.2006, and it was dismissed; that the
said fact was not brought to the notice of the authority; that under the
circumstances, the authority could not apply his mind, and all would go to show
that there was non-application of mind.
4.The Court heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor on the above
contentions.
5.After careful consideration of the rival submissions made, this Court is
of the considered opinion that no case is made out for allowing this petition.
It is an admitted position that six cases under the Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act
were registered against him, out of which three cases already ended in
admission. It is true that in all the three cases, he has been fined and has
paid Rs.500/- in each case. According to the petitioner, the detenu has made
the payment of fine of Rs.500/- only in each case and not Rs.750/- as recorded
by the detaining authority in respect of one case. Once it is a case of
admission, in the opinion of this Court, the amount of Rs.250/- would, in no
way, cause prejudice to the detenu or could, in no way, be called as non-
application of mind.
6.So far as the other contention was concerned, bail application was not
pending at that time; but, it was filed on 3.8.2006 and also dismissed. But,
the detaining authority has pointed out that no bail application was pending.
It cannot be stated that there was non-application of mind for the simple reason
that all the papers were placed by the sponsoring authority before the detaining
authority even much earlier. Under such circumstances, it cannot be a ground at
all.
7.As regards the other ground that the detenu could not have been in his
arrack shop in the evening of 10.7.2006, since he was fined that day by the
criminal Court, and he was available in the Court, the same cannot be accepted
at all, since no time is mentioned in the statement recorded from Muthusami by
the Investigator on 11.7.2006; but, it refers to the evening hours of 10.7.2006.
In such circumstances, it cannot be stated that a person fined by the criminal
Court, will be in the Court till the evening. That apart, it is not a case
where he was directed to be there till the rising of Court. It is only a case
of admission, and if immediately fine was paid, he would have come out, and
hence, that cannot be a ground to set aside the order. Under the circumstances,
this Court is unable to notice any reason to disturb the order of detention
passed by the authority.
8.Hence, this habeas corpus petition fails, and the same is dismissed.
To:
1.The Secretary to Government
Department of Excise and Prohibition
Secretariat, Fort St. George, Chennai 600 009.
2.The District Collector and
District Magistrate
Tiruchirappalli District, Tiruchirappalli
3.The Inspector of Police
Manapparai Police Station
Manapparai Sub-Division
Tiruchirappalli District
4.The Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court