AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
The writ petition is filed by the detenu challenging the order of detention dated 28.2.90 treating him as a bootlegger, under Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982.
The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner highlighted before us the obvious error in the detention order. In the order of detention, while setting out the adverse cases it is stated as follows:
Nachimuthu who was concerned in Crime No. 13/90 was convicted to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 6 weeks in S.T.R. No. 8/90 dated 12.1.1990 by the Judicial Magistrate No. 1, Namakkal. The accused undervent the full term of imprisonment.
(emphasis supplied by us.)
The ground case proceeds as if the detenu was found to have sold on 15.2.1990 illicit arrack to one Selvam who was at that time in the company of one Ravi. On the basis of the complaint lodged by Selvam, the detenu was arrested and order under Act 14 of 1982 was passed subsequently.
The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that if the order of detention which contains the statement of adverse cases is correct, he could not have been outside on 15.2.1990. A specific ground was taken in the affidavit pointing out this discrepancy. This has been met by the second respondent by stating the following:
Regarding the averment made in Ground (A) of paragraph 3 of the affidavit, it is submitted that even though the detenu was convicted on 12.1.90 for six weeks, he was released on 14.2.90. Therefore the allegation that the ground case could not have taken place is not correct.
No material is placed before us to show that the detenu was released on 14.2.90. In any event, either the counter affidavit must be true or the statement in the detention order regarding the adverse incident must be true. This shows the non-application of mind on the part of the detaining authority which vitiates the detention order.
Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed and the respondents are directed to release the petitioner forthwith, unless his detention is required in connection with any other case.