AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Venkataswami, J.—The Petitioner who has been detained as Goonda under Tamil Nadu Act 4 of 1982 has filed this petition for his release.
Learned Counsel for the Petitioner placing reliance on grounds (f), (g) and (i) taken into affidavit filed in support of the petition contends that the order of detention cannot be sustained. The abovesaid grounds read as follows:
(f) The second Respondent submits in the grounds of detention that in P.S. Crime No. 1987/91 the property stolen (Electricity meter) was recovered but in the charge sheet (Page No. 18) the second Respondent states that the property was not recovered.
(g) As per the first information report the property alleged to be stolen in Crime No. 1861/91 was two Focus fights (Halogen lamp) but in the grounds of detention and in the charge sheet the property was mentioned as ''Name Boards''.
(i) Mr. Azan, the name of the person who alleged to be received the stolen property from the detenu in mahazar (page 54). But in the remand report the name of the person who alleged to be received the stolen property was mentioned as ''Elian'' in Tamil Version, and ''E sar'' in the English Version. The detaining authority has not seen these major contradictions and passed the detention order without applying his mind.
Learned Additional Public Prosecutor on verification of the records fairly states that discrepancies pointed out in the above grounds are correct and he also admits that the statement of the detaining authority as if the properties were recovered in all cases including the ground case was also not correct inasmuch as the property in the second adverse case was not recovered. There is discrepancy between the statement in page 1 of the grounds of detention regarding the second adverse case and the copy of the charge sheet supplied to the detenu. The discrepancies pointed out in the grounds set out above, clearly supports the contention of the learned Counsel for the Petitioner that the detaining authority has not applied his mind before passing the impugned order of detention. In view of them, the order of detention is quashed. The petition is allowed. The Respondents are directed to release the detenu forthwith from custody unless he is liable to be detained in custody for some other cause.