AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Arunachalam, J.—Both these habeas corpus petitions are disposed of together by a common order, since Petitioners, who are detenus themselves, are stated to be involved in the same ground crime and the argument advanced is also identical.
H.C.P.2004 of 1993: Petitioner Anbu has been detained as a ''forest offender'' under Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982, in pursuance of an order of detention dated 4.8.1993, passed by the first Respondent, District Magistrate and Collector, Thiruvannamalai Sambuvarayar District at Thiruvannamalai, with a view to preventing him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order and health.
It will be totally unnecessary to state the facts in detail, which led to the passing of the impugned order for, this habeas corpus petition has to be allowed on the short ground of non-application of mind by the Detaining Authority.
In the grounds of detention, Detaining Authority has clearly mentioned that the forest officials left their range office at 6 A.M. on 26.7.1993 and travelled in Government jeeps, bearing Registration Nos. T.N.M.5068 and T.N.M.1148 to reach Pillai Kollai village at 7 a.m. They commenced their journey from Sandavasal Forest range office. After stopping their vehicles, the party was patrolling Aattupurai beat Kinatrangarai by walking in that area. At that time, the special party heard some sound, which made them to suspect that wood was being stacked. When they approached the venue, from which they heard the sound, they noticed certain persons stacking wood into thorny bushes. Detenu and another were arrested, while two others escaped. This arrest is stated to be at 6:45 a.m. on 26.7.1993 at the spot.
Mr. A.K.S. Thahir, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner, pointed out certain portions of the documents supplied to the detenu, which shows that the detenu was arrested at 6:15 a.m. and his confession was recorded. This argument was if the raiding party had reached the venue of crime at 7 a.m. thereafter during patrolling they had noticed detenu and others indulging themselves in stacking wood, they could not have arrested this detenu and another earlier and recorded the confession statement of the detenu at 6:15 a.m. This serious lacuna regarding the occurrence time and time of confession had not been noticed by the Detaining Authority. If he had taken note of this discrepancy, probably subjective satisfaction arrived at might have been different.
6: On this ground, we have heard Mr. S. Shanmughavelayudham, learned Additional Public Prosecutor. He was able to visualise the serious infirmity in the impugned order based on the material supplied to the detenu.
We have carefully assessed the inherent merits of the contentions advanced by Petitioner''s counsel. The grounds and the documents show that, after leaving Sandaval Forest Range Office at 6 A.M., the raiding party had travelled for about an hour before reaching Aatturparai beat. By walk they were patrolling in this area, which must have taken some more time. If that be so, it is rather strange as to how the confession statement of the detenu could have been recorded at 6:15 A.M. long prior to the arrival of the raiding party at the scene. On this aspect, documents furnished to the detenu and the grounds of detention are carefully at variance. Detaining authority ought to have called for further information to correlate this vital divergence. That not having been done, non application of mind is evident. On that sole ground detenu is bound to succeed. The impugned order of detention shall stand set aside. Detenu is directed to be set at liberty forthwith unless his detention is otherwise required. This habeas corpus petition is allowed.
8.H.C.P. No. 2013 of 1993: Detenu Shivaji, Petitioner herein, is also involved in the same ground along with the detenu Anbu, concerned in H.C.P. No. 2004 of 1993.
We have already quashed the order of detention passed against Anbu on the ground of non-application of mind by the Detaining Authority. The same parity of reasoning will equally apply to the case of this detenu (Shivaji) also. The impugned order of detention passed against the Petitioner in H.C.P. No. 2013 of 1993 shall stand quashed. Detenu is directed to be set at liberty forthwith unless his detention is otherwise required. This habeas corpus petition is allowed.