AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
R. Balasubramanian, J.—The detenu in this case had been detained as a "Bootlegger" under Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982 by detention order dated 3.7.1999. Though several points are advanced before this Court by the learned counsel for the petitioner. we are of the opinion that the detention order can be set aside on a solitary ground we refer to the same hereunder:-
In the grounds of detention both in English version and in Tamil version ,the Detaining Authority has stated that on the detenu being produced before the remand court on 23.6.1999, the court remanded him till 5.7.1999. However, the remand order available at page 41 of the booklet furnished to the detenu would show that the remand was from 23.6.1999 till 7.7.1999. There has been a series of judgments of this court that when a statement made by the Detaining Authority in the grounds of detention is contrary to the records available, then it would amount to non-application of mind on the part of the Detaining Authority. The argument of the learned Additional Public Prosecutor is that the statement made in the grounds of detention that the remand was till 5.7.1999 is a typographical error and instead of 7.7.1999, it has been wrongly typed as 5.7.1999. In the judgment of this court reported in "S. Chelladurai Nadar vs. State of Tamil Nadu" (1992(1) Cri 271), it has been held by a Division Bench of this Court that any discrepancy pointed out cannot be explained as due to typographical error. In view of the law laid down by this court, on the lines indicated above, we are of the opinion that the detention order is liable to be quashed on the grounds of non-application of mind.
The Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed. The impugned order of detention is quashed. The detenu is ordered to be set at liberty forthwith unless his detention is required in connection with any other case.