In the High Court of Judicature at Madras
Dated: 13/06/2006
Coram
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice P. SATHASIVAM
and
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice V. DHANAPALAN
Habeas Corpus Petition No.139 of 2006
Mrs. Muniammal .. Petitioner
vs.
1. The Commissioner of Police
Greater Chennai
Egmore, Chennai 600 008.
2. The Secretary to the
Government of Tamil Nadu
Prohibition & Excise Department
Fort St. George
Chennai 600 009. .. 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. P. Prince Premkumar
For respondents : Mr. M. Babu Muthu Meeran
Addl. Public Prosecutor
:ORDER
(Order of the Court was made by P. SATHASIVAM,J.,)
The petitioner by name Muniammal, challenges the impugned
order of detention dated 10.11.2005, detaining her son, D. Ravi, 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. After taking us through the impugned order of detention
and all other relevant materials, learned counsel for the petitioner raised
the following contentions:
(i) The detaining authority failed to take note of other crime numbers
referred to by the Sponsoring authority as well as the learned Judicial
Magistrate while passing the order of remand; hence, the detention order is
liable to be quashed on the ground of non-application of mind on the part of
the detaining authority;
(ii) Though in the representation, the detenu and his mother sought for copies
of certain documents, the same have not been duly furnished by the Government;
and
(iii) In the subsequent representation the mother of the detenu has sought for
clean copies of certain documents and the same were supplied after the enquiry
by the Advisory Board was over; hence, the detenu or his mother were prevented
from making an effective representation.
4. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor by placing relevant
records met all the above said contentions raised by the learned counsel for
the petitioner.
5. Coming to the first contention, viz., non-application of
mind on the part of the detaining authority by not referring other crime
numbers except Crime No.892 of 2005, we verified the relevant paragraph, viz.,
para 4 of the grounds of detention. It is true that the detaining authority
has taken note of the fact that the detenu was in remand in Crime No.892 of
2005 of S.15 Selaiyur Police Station. He also referred to the bail
application Crl.M.P.No.10220 of 2005 moved before the Judicial Magistrate,
Tambaram. The learned counsel for the petitioner has brought to our notice
the remand requisition made by the Sponsoring authority and the order passed
by the Judicial Magistrate, Tambaram dated 14.10.2005. It is true that in the
requisition, the Inspector of Police, Seliayur has not only mentioned the
Crime No.892 of 2005 relating to the ground case, but also referred to other
four Crime Numbers, viz., Cr.Nos.874 of 2005, 879 of 2005, 883 of 2005 and 890
of 2005. Likewise, the order of the Judicial Magistrate, Tambaram dated
14.10.2005 refers all the above mentioned crime numbers. It is also brought
to our notice that even in the special report dated 0 5.11.2005 the Inspector
of Police has referred to all the above five crime numbers. It is the claim
of the learned counsel for the petitioner that in such circumstances it is but
proper on the part of the detaining authority to refer all the five crime
numbers mentioned in the documents stated earlier. According to him, in the
absence of the same, it is presumed that the detaining authority has not
applied his mind and verified the fact regarding those crime numbers and
hence, the detention order passed by him cannot be sustained.
6. In support of the above contention, he relied on a
Division Bench decision of this Court dated 27.03.2006 in HCP.No.1296 and 1298
of 2005 (Muniammal and another vs. Secretary to Government, Prohibition and
Excise XII Department, Chennai 600 009 and another). We verified the factual
details in the said decision. It is useful to mention that the detenu in the
case on hand had 24 adverse cases to his credit. It is not in dispute that in
all the 24 cases, the offence involved is one under Section 379 IPC. On the
other hand, the ground case in Crime No.892 of 2005 relates to various
offences under Sections 341 , 427, 392 and 506(II) IPC. It is not in dispute
that offence under Section 392 is graver in nature than all other offences,
for which the maximum punishment is imprisonment for 10 years and fine. In
such circumstances, we are of the view that though the detaining authority was
in possession of all the details including the earlier crime numbers, after
taking note of all those materials and considering the fact that Crime No.892
of 2005 relates to a graver offence, referred the same in paragraph-4 of the
grounds of detention. In such circumstances, we are of the view that the
decision relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner is
distinguishable on facts and not applicable to the case on hand.
7. On the other hand, learned Additional Public Prosecutor
has brought to our notice the Division Bench decision of this Court dated
11.10.1995 made in HCP.No.744 of 1995 (Kaleeth vs. Commissioner of Police,
Madras City, Egmore, Chennai 600 008 and another). In that case, in identical
circumstances, the Division Bench rejected a similar contention raised before
it. In this regard, it is also relevant to refer the following conclusion
arrived at by the Division Bench:
“4. The second submission was that, the petitioner was arrested in the last
adverse case as well as in the ground crime on the same day and produced for
remand on the same day in both crimes. While so, the detaining authority had
arrived t his subjective satisfaction on compelling necessity, only in respect
of the ground crime and not in respect of last adverse crime, and hence the
subjective satisfaction arrived at must be held to be vitiated. We are unable
to agree for, in the ground crime a more serious offence has been alleged,
which is punishable with imprisonment for life, especially when hurt was
caused to policemen in the course of the same transaction. An offence under
Section 366 I.P.C. which is the subject matter of the last adverse crime is
punishable with imprisonment to a maximum extent of ten years rigorous
imprisonment. We cannot overlook that last adverse crime also stood
registered for an offence punishable under Sec.307 IPC also. The subjective
satisfaction arrived at relates to the graver crime punishable under Sec.307
IPC and, on that premise, we are unable to find fault with the subjective
satisfaction arrived at, on compelling necessity. This ground is rejected. ”
We are in respectful agreement with the view expressed by the Division Bench
and we hold that the detaining authority has not committed any error and the
order cannot be faulted with on the ground that he has not specifically
referred other crime numbers in the order of detention; accordingly, we reject
the first contention.
8. Coming to the second contention, learned counsel for the
petitioner vehemently submitted that in spite of the specific request made to
both the authorities the petitioner was not furnished with a copy of the order
passed by the Principal District Judge, Chengalpet. We verified the document
supplied to the detenu. It is not in dispute that the petitioner was supplied
with the copy of bail petition and orders passed thereon by the Judicial
Magistrate, Tambaram. It is also seen that the petitioner was supplied with
the copy of bail application in Crl.M.P.No.13951 of 2005 filed before the
District Judge, Chengalpet. As said earlier, it is the grievance of the
petitioner that the order passed by the District Court, Chengalpet has not
been furnished to the petitioner. It is also the grievance of the petitioner
that in spite of specific request, the Government, instead of complying with
her request, sent a reply stating that the order passed by the Judicial
Magistrate, Tambaram had already been furnished. We verified the documents
supplied to the detenu as well as reply sent by the Government. It is true
that the copy of the order passed by Principal District Court, Chengalpet has
not been supplied. On the other hand, it is not in dispute that bail petition
and order passed by Judicial Magistrate, Tambaram have been supplied. In the
absence of prejudice caused due to non-supply of the order passed by the
Principal District Judge, Chengalpet, we are of the view that the detention
order cannot be interfered with. On the other hand, it is not in dispute that
the detenu and her mother made representations and the same were duly
considered and rejected. Accordingly, we are unable to accept the second
contention also.
9. Coming to the third contention, we verified the
representation of the mother of the detenu, seeking clean copies of certain
pages in the paper book supplied to the detenu and clean copies of those
documents were also supplied to the detenu. It is the grievance of the
petitioner that those were supplied after the enquiry by the Advisory Board.
In this regard, we verified the representation made by mother of the detenu as
well as the details regarding the documents sought for by her and the reply
sent by the Government. Even according to the Government, though the copies
were legible and readable, the detaining authority was directed to supply
clean copies. In such circumstances, we are of the view that the petitioner
is in no way prejudiced by the supply of clean copies after the enquiry by the
Advisory Board. Accordingly, we reject the said contention also.
In the light of what is stated above, we do not find any error
or infirmity for interference. Accordingly, this petition fails and the same
is dismissed.
Kh
To
1. The Commissioner of Police
Greater Chennai
Egmore, Chennai 600 008.
2. The Secretary to the
Government of Tamil Nadu
Prohibition & Excise Department
Fort St. George
Chennai 600 009.