IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 05/07/2005
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P.SATHASIVAM
AND
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AR.RAMALINGAM
H.C.P.No.326 OF 2005
Ravi .. Petitioner
-Vs-
1.The Commissioner of Police,
Greater Chennai,
Egmore, Chennai-8.
2.The Govt.of Tamil Nadu
rep.by the Secretary
Prohibition and Excise Dept.,
Secretariat, Chennai-9 .. Respondents
Habeas Corpus Petition filed to call for the records of detention
order made in BDFGIS.V.No.15/2005 dated 21.1.2005 passed by the Commissioner
of Police, Greater Chennai, and set aside the same and direct the respondents
to produce the detenu Ravi, now confined in Central Prison, Chennai before
this court and set him at liberty.
!For Petitioner :: Mrs.Veeramarthini
^For Respondents :: Mr.Abudu Kumar Rajarathnam,
Government Advocate
:ORDER
(Order of the Court was made by P.SATHASIVAM,J.,)
The petitioner who was detained as “Goonda” under Act 14 of 1982 by
the impugned proceedings dated 21.1.2005, challenges the same in this Habeas
Corpus Petition.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner at the foremost submitted that
the impugned order of detention is liable to be quashed on the ground of non
application of mind since there is discrepancy in mentioning the date of
remand. In the light of the said contention, we verified the remand report
(Tamil version) which finds place at pages 97, 98 and 99 of the Paper Book
which shows that the detenu was arrested on 22.12.2004. This has been
correctly stated in the remand report. However in page 99 it has been wrongly
mentioned as 9.12.2004 and a request was made for remanding him for a period
of 15 days. A perusal of those details show that the reference made at page
99 of the Paper Book is only a typographical error on the part of the
Sponsoring Authority. We are satisfied that the same cannot be attributed to
the Detaining Authority who is the competent authority in passing the
detention order. We are satisfied that the mistake in the report of the
Sponsoring Authority has not affected the subjective satisfaction arrived at
by the Detaining Authority.
3. Coming to the second contention that in the absence of ”
compelling necessity”, the Detaining Authority is not justified in passing the
impugned order, learned Government Advocate has brought to our notice that
taking note of the relevant materials, the Detaining Authority has rightly
passed the impugned order of detention. A perusal of Paragraphs 3 and 4 of
the Grounds of Detention clearly show that the Detaining Authority has
possessed required materials and on satisfying himself that there is
compelling necessity to detain the detenu in order to prevent him from
indulging in such activities in future, passed the order of detention. On
perusal of those details in Paragraphs 3 and 4, we are of the view that there
is no substance in the claim made by the counsel for the petitioner.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner by drawing our attention to the
translated copy of the arrest report supplied to the detenu would submit that
there is improper translation. In the light of the said contention, we
verified pages 100, 111 and 112 of the Paper Book which shows that though the
bail application of the detenu was dismissed on 6.1.2005, in the English
version, it is stated that the said application was filed on 12.1.2005,
whereas in the Tamil version, it is mentioned as 6.1.2005. Here again, as
rightly pointed out by the learned Government Advocate, it is a petition filed
by the detenu himself and secondly, the date mentioned in the English Version,
namely 12.1.20 05, is only a typographical error since the petition itself was
dismissed by the court on 6.1.2005.
5. Finally, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that
though initially the detenu was remanded till 5.1.2005, again his remand was
extended till 19.1.2005 and further extended till 22.2.2005, the remand
extension order upto 19.1.2005 has not been stated by the Detaining Authority
in the grounds of detention i.e., at Paragraph 3. It is not in dispute that
those orders extending the remand till 22.2.2005 are available in the Paper
Book supplied to the detenu. Here again, as pointed out by the learned
Government Advocate, the Detaining Authority was aware of the relevant fact
that the detenu was in remand upto 22.2.2005. In other words, while passing
the order of detention i.e., on 21.1.2005, the Detaining Authority possessed
the relevant fact, namely the detenu was in remand. In such circumstances, we
hold that the mere omission with regard to the extension of remand till
19.1.2005 in the grounds of detention has not caused any prejudice to the
petitioner. A similar view has been expressed by a Division Bench of this
Court in HCP.No.1961 of 2002, dated 24.1.2003 (Padmavathi Vs. Commissioner of
Police, Greater Chennai & another). Accordingly, we reject the said
contention also.
6. In the light of what is stated above, we hold that there is no
merit in this Hebeas Corpus Petition and the same is dismissed.
gkv.
Copy to:
1.The Commissioner of Police,
Greater Chennai,
Egmore, Chennai-8.
2.The Govt.of Tamil Nadu
rep.by the Secretary
Prohibition and Excise Dept.,
Secretariat, Chennai-9
3.The Public Prosecutor,
High Court, Chennai.
