AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Raja Elango, J.—The petitioner challenges an order of the second respondent passed in Memo No. 31/BDFGISSV/2009 on 27.3.2009
detaining his son Raj @ Raji @ Amalraj @ Amulraj as a Goonda u/s 2(f) of the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982.
We have heard the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and also the learned Additional Public Prosecutor and perused the records
produced by the State.
Learned Counsel for the petitioner first argued that the detention order was passed on 27.3.2009 after a lapse of more than 1 1/2 months from
the time of remand. A perusal of the records would show that the sponsoring authority has stated that the delay in passing the order is due to the
fact that the extension of remand was made till 20.2.2009 and it was further extended till 2.4.2009 and due to advocates'' boycott, the sponsoring
authority was not able to obtain the remand order till 26.3.2009. So the detention order was passed on 27.3.2009. In view of the above, we are
of the opinion that the delay cannot be taken into account.
The second point raised by the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the bail application filed on 26.3.2009 in Crl.M.P. No. 2085/2009 was
not brought to the notice of the detaining authority. A careful perusal of the records and consideration of the submissions made by the learned
Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State would go to show that the date of filing of the bail application was 26.3.2009. In the normal
course, notice will be served on the sponsoring authority only on the next day. In this case, the detention order was passed on 27.3.2009. Hence
the knowledge of the filing of the bail application does not arise on that day.
The third point raised by the learned Counsel is that in the detention order it is stated that the detenu has not moved bail application before the
XVII M.M.; but, the detenu moved bail applications in Crl.M.P. Nos. 636, 592 and 637 of 2009 which shows the non-application of mind by the
detaining authority. Here also, the records reveal and the total reading of the sentence in paragraph 4 of the detention order clearly shows that the
word ""not"" is only a typographical error, and the Tamil version of the detention order also clearly shows that the detenu moved bail application,
and the same was dismissed. So the petitioner cannot take advantage of the same.
The other contention raised by the learned Counsel is that the detenu was remanded by the XVII M.M. in his residence; but, in the detention
order it is stated that the detenu was remanded by the XVII M.M.''s Court. That the functioning of the Magistrate while discharging his duties as a
Judicial Officer either in the Court or in his residence will have the same effect. The Magistrates are also recording dying declaration in the hospital
and also conducting identification parade in the prison doing the same in the capacity as a Magistrate. In this case the Magistrate remanded the
detenu in the capacity as XVII M.M.
Merely because in the detention order it is stated that the detenu was remanded by XVII M.M.''s Court, it cannot be stated that it has caused
prejudice to the detenu.
For the above reasons, the petitioner failed in his attempt to convince the Court on the aforesaid grounds. There is no need to interfere with the
order of detention passed by the detaining authority. Hence this petition is dismissed.