AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
M. Chockalingam, J.—Challenge is made to an order of the first respondent in C.P.O/T.C/I.S/D.O. No. 09/2010 dated 17.01.2010 whereby son of the petitioner was ordered to be detained under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Boot-Leggers, Drug Offenders, Forest Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders, Sand Offenders, Slum-grabbers and Video Pirates Act, 1982 (Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982) terming him as a "Goonda".
The Court heard the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and looked into all the materials available including the order under challenge.
It is not in controversy that the detenu was involved in two adverse cases, which are as follows:
Sl Name of the Police station and Crime No. Section of law No. K.K.Nagar P.S. 387 and 506(ii) 1. Crime No. 549/2007 IPC 2. K.K.Nagar P.S. 392 IPC Crime No. 24/2009
Apart from that, the detenu was involved in one ground case in Crime No. 547/2009 under Sections 392 and 397 IPC registered by K.K. Nagar Police Station. Pursuant to the recommendation made by the sponsoring authority that the detenu was involved in two adverse cases and in one ground case, after scrutiny of the materials available, the detaining authority recorded his subjective satisfaction that the activities of the detenu were prejudicial to the maintenance of public order and that he should be detained as a "Goonda" and accordingly, made the order of detention, which is the subject matter of challenge before this Court.
The only ground on which the order under challenge is sought to be set aside is that insofar as both the adverse cases are concerned it is referred to in the order of detention that in both the cases registered by K.K. Nagar Police Station in Crime No. 549 of 2007 and also in Crime No. 24 of 2009, charge sheets were actually laid before the Judicial Magistrate No. 2, Tiruchirappalli and they are also pending trial and these are all incorrect information supplied by the sponsoring authority to the detaining authority. In both the cases copy applications were filed for issuance of the copy of the charge sheets in Crime No. 549 of 2007 and also the other case in Crime No. 24 of 2009, but both the copy applications were returned by the Court stating that charge sheets were not filed in those cases. Thus it would be quite clear that in both the cases charge sheets were not even filed. Thus the sponsoring authority placed information before the detaining authority as if charge sheets were filed and they are also pending trial. Under the said circumstances, it would suffice to set aside the order of detention.
The Court heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor on the above contention and paid its anxious consideration on the submissions made.
It is not in controversy that pursuant to the recommendations made by the sponsoring authority that the detenu was involved in two adverse cases and in one ground case referred to above registered by K.K. Nagar Police Station and he was remanded to judicial custody on 17.12.2009 and the remanded was extended till 25.01.2010, the detaining authority recorded the subjective satisfaction that the activities of the detenu were prejudicial to the maintenance of the public order and has made the order under challenge.
After looking into the materials available, the Court has to necessarily agree with the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the detention order is infirm.
It is needless to say that the sponsoring authority placed the materials before the detaining authority calling for its interference to pass an order of detention invoking the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982. The law would expect that all the true, necessary and relevant materials are placed before the detaining authority. But in the instant case, it was not so, as could be seen from the order of detention. Insofar as both the adverse cases are concerned, it is mentioned that charge sheets in both the cases were laid and also pending trial. On the contrary, when the petitioner sought for the copy of the charge sheets in both the cases, actually the copy applications were returned stating that charge sheets have not been filed. Under the said circumstances, it would be quite clear that even without filing the charge sheets in both the cases, the sponsoring authority has placed particulars before the detaining authority which were incorrect and misleading. Under the said circumstances, it cannot be stated that all necessary and relevant materials were placed by the sponsoring authority before the detaining authority. Under the said circumstances, the detaining authority could not have come to the correct conclusion to take a decision to record its subjective satisfaction as done in the instant case. Thus the order has become defective and the same has got to be set aside.
Accordingly, the order of detention is set aside. The detenu is directed to be set at liberty forthwith unless he is required in connection with any other case. The Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed.