AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
M. Chockalingam, J.—Challenge is made to an order of detention passed by the first respondent dated 21.04.2008 made in
C.P.O/T.C/I.S/D.O.No.23/2008, under Act 14 of 1982 terming the petitioner''s son as ''Goonda''.
The Court heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and also the learned Additional Public Prosecutor and looked into all the materials in
particular the order under challenge.
Pursuant to the recommendations made by the sponsoring authority that the detenu was involved in two adverse cases viz. Crime No. 1353 of
2006 by the Tiruchirappalli Cantonment Police Station u/s 380 I.P.C. and Crime No. 277 of 2007 by the Triruchirappalli Tiruverumbur Police
Station u/s 379 I.P.C. and also on the strength of one ground case in Crime No. 76 of 2008 by the Edamalaipattipudur Police Station under
Sections 397 and 506(ii) I.P.C., the detaining authority after looking into the materials available on record, recorded its subjective satisfaction that
the activities of the detenu were prejudicial to the maintenance of the public order and hence he has got to be detained under the Tamil Nadu Act
14 of 1982 terming him as ""Goonda"" as defined under the said Act 14 of 1982 and accordingly done which is attacked by the petitioner herein.
The order under challenge is on attack by the learned Counsel for the petitioner mainly on three grounds that the detenu was arrested on
09.03.2008 and the order under challenge came to be passed by the detaining authority on 21.04.2008. In the meanwhile the detenu did not make
any bail application or any application is pending before any Court of criminal law. Under such circumstances, the observation made by the
detaining authority that there was imminent possibility of the detenu coming out on bail is without any material or whatsoever. Secondly, when the
copies of the detention order were served, it contained both Tamil and English versions, but there were discrepancies. In the English version where
it is mentioned that both the accused threatened the victim, but in the Tamil version the co-accused alone did the same and in the copy of the
complaint originally it was found that more than Rs. 1,000/- was robbed by the co-accused from the victim, but at the end of the complaint it is
stated that a sum of Rs. 5000/- has got to be recovered and in this regard the detaining authority should have called for clarification, but he had not
done so. Further, the learned Counsel for the petitioner would submit that it is open for the State to pass an order within 12 days from the date of
detention. The detenu should have put on notice about the confirmation of detention order, but in the instant case, a delay of 10 days has been
caused in bringing to the notice of the detenu about the confirmation of the said detention and all these grounds would suffice to set aside the said
order.
The Court heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor on the above said contentions.
It is not in controversy that the petitioner''s son Madhan @ Goodshed Madhan was detained under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of
1982 pursuant to the order dated 21.04.2008 made by the detaining authority on the strength of the recommendations made by the sponsoring
authority as stated supra that two adverse cases have been registered against him and also one ground case. The detaining authority has pointed
out in its order that after going into the materials it has arrived at a subjective satisfaction that the activities of the detenu were in the manner
prejudicial to the public order and he has got to be termed as ''Goonda'' and passed the order under challenge.
After careful scrutiny of the materials available and hearing the submissions, when they are viewed from the submissions made by the Counsel,
this Court is of the considered opinion to set aside the order under challenge. Concededly, the detenue was arrested on 09.03.2008 and the order
of detention came to be passed on 21.04.2008 in which no bail application was filed or pending before any Court of criminal law, but the authority
has pointed out in its order that there was imminent possibility of the detenu coming out on bail. Thus, it would be quite clear that in order to record
such a finding, the observation has been made without any material at all. Thus, it would be indicative of the non application of mind by the
detaining authority.
Secondly, as rightly pointed out by the learned Counsel for the petitioner the discrepancies in Tamil and English copies are noticed and apart
from the same, in the complaint, the complainant has made a statement that a sum of Rs. 1,000/- was robbed by the co-accused, but at the end of
the complaint it is stated that Rs. 5000/- has to be recovered. If those things were noticed, the detaining authority should have asked for
clarification, but it had not done so and that would be indicative of the non application of mind of the detaining authority as rightly pointed out by
the learned Counsel for the petitioner.
The third contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that there was a delay of 10 days in serving the notice on the detenu after
confirmation made by the State. Though it was confirmed within stipulated time, further delay of 10 days is noticed in informing the detenu about
the confirmation by the State, which could have caused serious prejudice to the detenu. Hence, in the considered opinion of the Court, it would be
suffice to set aside the order under challenge. Hence, this Court has made undone by upsetting the order under challenge.
Accordingly, the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and the order of detention in C.P.O/T.C/I.S/D.O.No.23 of 2008 dated 21.04.2008
passed by the first respondent is quashed. The detenu is directed to be released forthwith unless his presence, in accordance with law, is required
in connection with any other case.