S. Rajasekar vs The Commissioner of Police and The Secretary to Government of Tamil Nadu, Prohibition and Excise Department

P.D. Dinakaran, J.—Challenge is to the order of detention dated 8.4.2005 passed by the first respondent herein in exercise of the powers

conferred under sub Section (1) of Section 3 of the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous activities of Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Forest

Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders, Slum Grabbers and Video Pirates Act 1982, branding the detenu Srinivasan, brother in law of

the petitioner herein, as a goonda, u/s 2(f) of the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982.

According to the detaining authority, on 4.3.2005 at about 8.30 p.m. one Vijayachandran, who was working as Office Boy in M/s. V.K.S.

Alloys Pvt. Ltd. Company, as usual, collected Rs. 11,14,094.00 from M/s. Kanchi Steels at Sembudoss Street and put the said money into a cloth

bag and kept the same in the front dikky of the scooter and locked the same. While he was proceeding towards his office, at Royapuram Old

Bridge, one Srinivan, the detenu herein, Saravanan @ Sevittu Saravanan and Marimuthu @ Mari came in a motor cycle and Saravanan, Samson

and Charles @ Charles Raj, came in a auto rickshaw, stopped the motor cyle and autorickshaw and wrongfully restrained the said

Vijayachandran. Marimuthu @ Mari and Saravanan armed with deadly weapon threatened him and further fisted him with his left hand.

Vijayachandran raised hue and cry. Immediately, the detenu threw chilli powder against Vijayachandran''s face. On hearing the hue and cry of

Vijayachandran, the public, who were at the spot came for his rescue and apprehended the accused. On seeing the public, the detenu picked up

cool drink bottles and hurled the same against them. On noticing the atrocious activities of the accused, the public ran hither and thither and thereby

created traffic dislocation. A case was registered in Crime No. 470/2005 on the file of the N1 Royapuram Police Station u/s 397 IPC.

Considering the above case as ground case and also taking note of one another adverse case of similar nature, the first respondent has passed

the order of detention on 8.4.2005.

The learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the order of detention is vitiated on the ground of non-application of mind. In support of his

contention, he referred the orders passed by the XVI Metropolitan Magistrate, George Town, Chennai, which is found at Page Nos. 129 and 130

of the booklet and argued that though the accused was produced before the said Magistrate on 5.3.2005 and was remanded till 18.3.2005 and

thereafter by an order dated 18.3.2005, the remand was extended till 1.4.2005 by producing the accused through video conference and on the

expiry of the extended remand on 1.4.2005, the accused was not produced through video conference and therefore, the next hearing was fixed on

15.4.2005, but the detaining authority, in the grounds of detention, has stated that remand was extended till 15.4.2005 and hence, the order of

detention is vitiated and the same is liable to be quashed.

In view of the above argument put forth by the learned counsel for the petitioner, we have also perused the orders passed by the XVI

Metropolitan Magistrate, which reads as follows:

REMAND ORDER DATED 5.3.2005

All the six accused produced before me at 9.15 p.m. No complaints against the Police. Remanded till 18.3.2005. When this accused 3 is

produced before me he is limping when I enquired he said he fell down.

Sd/- Mohandass 5.3.2005

XVI Metropolitan Magistrate I/C

George Town, Chennai-1

REMAND EXTENTION ORDER DATED 16.3.2005

Accused produced through video conference Remand extended till 1.4.2005

Sd/- Mohandass 5.3.2005

XVI Metropolitan Magistrate I/C

George Town, Chennai-1

REMAND EXTENTION ORDER DATED 1.4.2005

Accused not produced through video conference. Next Hearing date 15.4.2005.

From the above material, as rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner that even though the accused was originally remanded till

18.3.2005 and subsequently, his remand was extended till 1.4.2005, there was no further extension of remand on 1.4.2005 till 15.4.2005, but the

detaining authority, in the grounds of detention, had presumed that the fixing of next hearing date as 15.4.2005 implied that the remand was

extended till 15.4.2005, which amounts, in our considered opinion, to a total non-application of mind and hence, the impugned order of detention

is vitiated and the same is quashed. The habeas corpus petition is allowed. The detenu is directed to be released forthwith, unless he is required in

connection with any other case.