Anthony vs The Secretary to Government of Tamil Nadu, Prohibition and Excise Department and The Commissioner of Police

P.D. Dinakaran, J.—Challenging the order of detention dated 3.7.2007 made in 208/2007, passed by the second respondent branding the

petitioner as a ''Goonda'' under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Forest

Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders, Sand Offenders, Slum Grabbers and Video Pirates Act, 1982 (Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982), the

petitioner, who is now confined in Central Prison, Chennai, has filed this Habeas Corpus Petition to set aside the order of detention and directing

the respondents to produce him before this Court and set him at liberty.

The ground case based on which the impugned order of detention has been passed is that on 24.6.2007 at about 1700 hours, when one Velu

was returning to his home in his cycle, the detenu restrained and threatened him at the point of knife, took away Rs. 330/- and a gold ring from his

finger. When the complainant shouted for rescue, the public tried to catch the detenu, but the detenu pelted stones on them. '' However, the police

personnel with the help of the public apprehended him and a case in Crime No. 451 of 2007 was registered for offences punishable under

Sections 341, 323, 336, 392 and 506(2) I.P.C. and the detenu was sent for judicial remand.

Taking into consideration the above said ground case as well as seven adverse cases, which are for the offences punishable under Sections 336,

341, 324, 380, 392, 399, 457 and 506(2) IPC, the second respondent/detaining authority having satisfied that there is a compelling necessity to

detain the detenu in order to prevent him from indulging in the activities which are prejudicial to the maintenance of public order, ordered his

detention dubbing him as a Goonda.

The main contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that even though it is stated in the first information report as well as the arrest

memo relied upon by the detaining authority that the detenu was arrested on 24.6.2007,. the detenu specifically stated in this representation dated

6.8.2007 addressed to the Government as well as the Advisory Board that he was arrested on 23.6.2007 at 4 hours, but the said point was not

considered either by the Government or by the Advisory Board while disposing of his representation and therefore, the detention order is vitiated.

We heard Mr. N.R. Elango, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents and perused the materials available on record.

A perusal of the arrest memo and the first information report discloses that the detenu was arrested on 24.6.2007. But, the detenu made a

representation on 6.8.2007, specifically alleging that he was arrested on 23.6.2007 at 4 hours. However, the said point was not considered either

by the Government or by the Advisory Board while disposing the representation of the detenu. The non consideration of the above vital aspect,

viz., the dispute as to the time of arrest of the detenu, vitiates the order of the detention.

For the reason aforesaid, the impugned order of detention is vitiated and as such, the same is liable to be set aside and accordingly, the same is

set aside. This petition is allowed. The order of detention dated 3.7.2007 is set aside. The detenu is directed to be set at liberty forthwith unless his

presence is required connection with in any other crime. No costs.