Swaminathan vs The State of Tamil Nadu

P. Sathasivam, J.—The petitioner challenges the detention order dated 21.12.2004, detaining him as ""Goonda"", passed u/s 3(1) 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 (Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982).

Learned counsel for the petitioner, after taking us through the grounds of detention and all other connected materials, has raised the following

contentions:-

(i) Though the detenu has been described as Swaminathan, in some documents he is described as Swaminathan @ Prakash. In the grounds of

detention, the detenu has been described as Swaminathan. In the absence of any explanation by the person concerned, the ultimate order passed

by the Detaining Authority cannot be sustained.

(ii) In view of the mistake in furnishing Crime Number at page No.19 1 of the Booklet, the detention order is liable to be quashed on the ground of

non-application of mind.

(iii) Inasmuch as the arrest of the detenu was not intimated to his family members, the detention order is contrary to the decision of the Supreme

Court in D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal 1997 SCC (Crl.) 92.

Coming to the first contention, it is true that in page Nos. 15, 1 9 and 23 of the Booklet supplied to the detenu, his name has been described as

Swaminathan @ Prakash. However, in all other documents, he has been described as Swaminathan. It is also relevant to note that in all places, his

father name (Panchanathan) has been correctly mentioned. In such circumstances, merely because there is wrong description in certain documents,

it cannot be claimed that the Detaining Authority has not applied his mind. Further, the identity has not been questioned by the petitioner. In such

circumstances, we reject the first contention.

Coming to the second contention, in page No. 191 of the Booklet, the Crime Number relating to the ground case has been mentioned as 217 9,

whereas, in the grounds of detention, it has been stated as Cr. No. 2197. According to the counsel for the petitioner, since this discrepancy goes

to the root of the matter, the ultimate order of the Detaining Authority has to be quashed. Here again, learned Government Advocate has brought

to our notice that except in page No. 191, the correct Crime Number, viz., Cr. No. 2197, has been furnished in all other places. We have also

verified the same. We accept the explanation offered by the respondents.

It is the claim of the petitioner that his arrest was not properly intimated to his family members, even though the address of his mother was

available to the Sponsoring Authority. In this regard, learned Government Advocate has brought to our notice that ultimately after the arrest, the

same was intimated to his friend, viz., one Mohan. He also brought to our notice that the Arrest Memo contains not only his (Mohan''s) signature

but also his address and other details. In Column No.12 of the Arrest Memo, after referring his name, ie., Mohan, he has been described as

''friend''. It is further seen that the detenu himself put his thumb impression in the Arrest Memo. In such circumstances, it cannot be accepted that

there is violation of the principles laid down in D.K. Basu''s case (cited supra).

In the light of what is stated above, there is no valid ground for interference. Accordingly, the Habeas Corpus Petition is dismissed.

Consequently, H.C.M.P. No.80 of 2005 is dismissed.