IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 06/02/2006
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P. SATHASIVAM
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.A.K. SAMPATH KUMAR
HCP.No.1092 of 2005
Peeli .. Petitioner
-Vs-
1. The Secretary to Government
Prohibition and Excise Department
Chennai 9.
2. The Commissioner of Police
Greater Chennai, Chennai.
3. The Inspector of Police
H-1 Washermenpet Police Station
Crime, Chennai. .. 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. M.V. Kesavan
For respondents :Mr. Abudukumar Rajarathinam
Government Advocate (Crl.side)
:ORDER
(ORDER OF THE COURT WAS MADE BY P. SATHASIVAM,J.)
The petitioner by name Peeli, who was detained as Goonda under
Section 3(1) of the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of
Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Forest Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic
Offenders, Slum Grabbers and Video Pirates Act, 1982 (in short ” Tamil Nadu
Act 14 of 1982″), by the detention order of the second respondent made in Memo
No.99/2005 dated 15.03.2005, challenges the same in this petition.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as
learned Government Advocate for the respondents.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner at the outset by
pointing out the Observation Mahazar, which is available at page 105 of the
paper book contended that in view of the reference therein, viz., relating to
the date of occurrence and the reference made in other documents, it is
presumed that there is no such occurrence at all and in the absence of
acceptable evidence / material, the detaining authority has committed an error
in passing the impugned detention order.
4. We verified the Observation Mahazar, which is available at
page 105 of the paper book. It is true that the date of occurrence has been
mentioned as 03.03.2004. It is not in dispute that it relates to Crime No.264
of 2005 on the file of Washermanpet Police Station for the offence under
Sections 341,392, 397, 336 and 506 (ii) IPC. Though in the said Observation
Mahazar it is stated that the date of occurrence is 03.03.2004, in all other
documents it has been correctly stated as 01.03.2005. As rightly pointed out,
even the document available at page 105 of the paper book has been attested by
two witnesses, viz., Muthu and Suresh, who in their statements has referred to
the date of occurrence as 01.03.2005. Apart from the statement of those two
persons, others also made a statement, specifically referred to the date of
occurrence as 01.03.2005. That apart, in the First Information Report, Form
95, seizure mahazar, etc., it is correctly stated that 01.03.2005 as the date
of occurrence, based on which the detaining authority has passed the detention
order. Even otherwise, as rightly pointed out by the learned Government
Advocate, the said Observation Mahazar available at page 105 is not a relied
upon document, on the other hand, in all relied upon documents, the date of
occurrence has been correctly stated as 01.03.2005. In such a circumstance,
we are unable to accept the contention raised by the learned counsel for the
petitioner.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner by drawing our
attention to arrest memo, which is available page 125 of the booklet contended
that though the intimation of his arrest was informed to one Sathya, according
to the counsel, the detenu has no such relation. In the same document, the
name and address as well as his relationship with the detenu have been
specifically stated in Column 12. In the light of the details available
therein, we reject the said contention also.
In the light of what is stated above, we do not find any valid ground
for interference. Hence, this petition is dismissed.
Index:Yes
Internet:Yes
To
1. The Secretary to Government
Prohibition and Excise Department
Fort St. George
Chennai 9.
2. The Commissioner of Police
Greater Chennai
Egmore, Chennai 600 008.
3. The Inspector of Police
H-1 Washermenpet Police Station
Crime, Chennai.