SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2006 Supreme(Mad) 1608

High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. SATHASIVAM & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V. DHANAPALAN
Revathy - Appellant
Versus
State of Tamil Nadu, represented by Secretary to Government & Another - Respondents
Habeas Corpus Petition No.187 of 2006
Decided On : 03 July 2006

Appearing Advocates:For the Petitioner:V. Parthiban, Advocate. For the Respondents:G. Saravanan, Government Advocate.

More than one serial number of form is used for different crime will not vitiate order of detention.

Headnote:Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Forest Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders, Slum Grabbers and Video Pirates Act (14 of 1982), Section 3(1) - Criminal Procedure Code (2 of 1974), Section 154(1) - Police Standing Orders, Order 560 - Preventive Detention - Alleged discrepancy in serial numbers in F.I.R forms - Crime numbers registered are based on information given either oral or writing - Explanation offered by sponsoring authority cannot be disbelieved - If graver offence only is taken into consideration for passing order of detention ultimate decision taken by Detaining Authority cannot be faulted with - Habeas Corpus Petition dismissed.

Judgment :-

(Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of a Writ of Habeas Corpus to call for the records in connection with the order of detention passed by the second respondent dated 11.11.2005 in Memo No.516/BDFGISV/2005 against the petitioner's husband David, Male, aged 25, Son of Samvel, who is confined at Central Prison, Chennai, set aside the same, direct the respondents to produce him before Court and set him at liberty.)

P. Sathasivam, J.

The petitioner herein challenges the detention order, dated 11.11.2005, detaining her husband by name David as ‘Goonda’ as contemplated under 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).

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Government Advocate for the respondents.

3. Mr.V.Parthiban, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that in view of the discrepancy in the Serial Numbers in the First Information Reports, in the absence of proper explanation, the impugned order passed by the second respondent is liable to be quashed on the ground of non-application of mind.

4. In support of the above contention, learned counsel for the petitioner furnished certain details, viz., in the Booklet supplied to the detenu, page Nos.25 and 26 are the F.I.R. Copy of M-3 Puzhal Police Station in Crime No.1061/2005; page Nos.35 and 36 are the F.I.R. Copy of M3 Puzhal Police Station in Crime No.1062 of 2005; Page Nos.44 and 45 are the F.I.R. Copy of M3 Puzhal Police Station in Crime No.1068 of 2005; and the first two F.I.Rs. relate to the adverse cases and the last one relates to the ground case. He also pointed out that with regard to the first case relating to Crime No.1061 of 2005, the date of occurrence is 20.10.2005 and the serial number of the F.I.R. is 1661834; the second case relates to Crime No.1062 of 2005 and the date of occurrence is 15.10.2005 and the serial number of the F.I.R. is 1661833; and the third case, which is the ground case, relates to Crime No.1068 of 2005 and the date of occurrence is 24.10.2005 and the serial number of the F.I.R. is 1661834. By pointing out the above details, he submits that even though there is a clear gap of 2 days respectively with regard to the date of occurrence and two cases reported on 21.10.2005 and 24.10.2005, the Serial Number of the F.I.Rs. relating to those two cases is same, which clearly shows that all the cases have been foisted against the detenu in a single day to detain him under the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982.

5. In the light of the factual details furnished, we verified the Serial Numbers found in the F.I.R. As pointed out, in respect of the two cases reported on 21.10.2005 and 24.10.2005, the serial number of the F.I.R. is the same. However, learned Government Advocate, by drawing our attention to the explanation offered by the Sponsoring Authority and the Detaining Authority in the form of supporting affidavit and counter affidavit respectively, contended that the serial numbers found in the F.I.R Forms are the numbers given by the Government Press and they are in no way concerned with the maintenance of F.I.R. Book at the Police Station. It is useful to refer to the details furnished by the Sponsoring Authority in the Supporting Affidavit, dated 22.06.2006, which reads as under:-

"I submit that First Information Reports forms are issued by the Government through the Government Press. Each book of First Information Report forms will contain 150 leaves and the same was stapled. Six of the leaves will have the same number. Hence, in one book 25 numbers of FIR form will be available. Due to shortage and availability of Xerox machines only three copies are prepared in the issued FIR form and rest of the copies will be Xeroxed and forwarded to the higher police authorities.

I also submit that the instruction regard the First Informati















Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top