AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
R. Regupathi, J.—The petitioner herein challenges the impugned order of detention, dated 24.05.2007. whereby, he has been detained as
''Goonda'' as contemplated under 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).
It is seen from the grounds on which the detention order came to be passed that on 17.05.2007 at 13.00 Hours, before the Inspector of Police.
B-12 Ukkadam L & O Police Station, Coimbatore City, one P.K. Ummar/complainant appeared along with Head Constable Kamalakannan,
who produced the detenu. In the written complaint lodged by the complainant, it was stated that on 17.05.2007 at 11,30 Hrs., when the
complainant was doing watch repair business at Podanur Road, the detenu came there and demanded money to consume liquor and since he
refused to accede to such demand the detenu acting violently, snatched Rs. 100/- from complainant''s shirt pocket, kicked away all the watches
kept for repair,, also took a watch and started running away from that place. When the complainant tried to chase him, the detenu took out a knife
from his waist and tried to stab the complainant, however, the complainant thwarted the attack, whereupon, the detenu threatened him to leave that
place as otherwise, he would kill him. On seeing his atrocious activities, people started running helter-skleter and normalcy of the area came to a
standstill. At that time, police personnel who came there on routine rounds apprehended the detenu. A case was registered in B-12 Ukkadam P.S.
Cr. No. 295 of 2007 for offences u/s 392 read with Sections 397 and 506 IPC. The Detaining Authority, taking note of four adverse cases to the
credit of the detenu, clamped the order of detention branding him as ''Goonda''.
Learned Counsel for the petitioner contends that the Detaining Authority has stated in the grounds of detention that the detenu, in his statement,
had admitted the offence committed by him in the adverse cases, however, the fact-remains, no such admission has been made. Inasmuch as the
Detaining Authority has mentioned misleading facts in the grounds of detention, it is quite apparent that he has mechanically passed the detention
order without application of mind; that being so, the detention order is vitiated.
With regard to the contention of the learned Counsel, we verified the materials available on record. In paragraph No. 6 of the grounds of
detention, the Detaining Authority has stated as follows:
Further, Thiru. Nagaraj @ Lolai Nagaraj @ Mohammed Esak in his statement had admitted the offence committed by him near X-8 Hotel,
Ukkadam-Podanur Road.
Coimbatore at 1130 hours on 17.05.2007 and the offence committed by him in the adverse cases.
It is seen that in the translated copy of the order of learned Judicial Magistrate No. V, Coimbatore, in C.C. No. 476 of 2005 (relating to
adverse case No. 1), available at page No. 5 of the Booklet, it is mentioned that the accused admitted the guilt, however, in the fair copy of the
order of the Magistrate available at Page No. 4 of the Booklet, it is stated that the accused ''Pleaded not guilty''. As rightly pointed out, the version
of the Detaining Authority with reference to the above aspect is an apparent discrepancy on the face of records and it resulted in the detenu being
deprived from making an effective representation. That being so, the impugned order of detention is liable to be quashed.
Accordingly, the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and the order of detention is quashed the and the detenu is directed to be set at liberty
forthwith from custody unless he is required in connection with any other case or cause.