The detaining authority can rely on a confessional statement for subjective satisfaction, and compliance with remand order guidelines is a separate matter.

(Prayer: Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issue of a writ of Habeas Corpus, to call for the records in connection with the order of detention passed by the second respondent dated 11.01.2006 in his Office Ref.No.C3.D.O.No. 4/2006 and set aside the same and consequently direct the respondents to produce the detenu, Moorthy @ Chengam Moorthy, who is confined in Central Prison, Vellore, before this Hon'ble Court and set him at liberty forthwith.)

P.K. Misra, J.

Heard the learned counsel appearing for both parties.

2. The detenu himself has filed the above habeas corpus petition. He has been detained under Act 14 of 1982 on the allegation that he is a 'Goonda'.

3. In the grounds of detention, the detaining authority has referred to seven adverse cases, out of which, one case relates to the year 2000 and the other cases relate to the year 2005. It is contended by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that in all these cases as well as the ground case, which is alleged to have been occurred on 9th December 2005, the name of the petitioner has not been shown as accused and there is no material on record to indicate that the detenu was involved in the adverse cases.

4. The offences were registered under various sections including Sections 397, 380, 379, 457, 394 and 392 IPC. In such offences, normally, the offenders are unknown persons and in the course of investigation, such persons are apprehended. In the present case, the detaining authority has referred to the confessional statement alleged to have been made by the detenu, wherein he has disclosed his involvement on the earlier occasions. Even though in criminal trial such confessional statement may not be admissible except to the extent permitted under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, there is no embargo on the detaining authority in relying upon such confession for forming the subjective satisfaction and the Court dealing with applications under Habeas Corpus Petition is not entitled to decide the matter as an Appellate Authority in an objective manner. In such view of the matter, the contention of the petitioner that except the ground case, there was nothing to indicate about his earlier involvement in the adverse cases is not acceptable.

5. The second contention of the petitioner is to the effect that after the arrest, the factum of arrest was not intimated to the relatives of the petitioner, as contemplated by the Supreme Court in D.K.BASU -vs.- STATE OF WEST BENGAL (1997 S.C.C (Crl.) 92). So far as this aspect is concerned, the Additional Public Prosecutor has produced before us the booklet, which indicates that the factum of arrest was intimated to the sister of the detenu and therefore, it cannot be said that the requirements of D.K.Basu's case has not been followed. Even otherwise, if such arrest is not intimated, that may be a ground to challenge the remand order and that will not be a ground to quash the subsequent order of preventive detention. This position has been clarified by the Division Bench decision in 2001 L.W. (Crl.) Page 443 (VADIVEL -vs.- THE STATE OF TAMIL NADU REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF PROHIBITION AND EXCISE AND ANOTHER), where, it has been observed as follows:-

"10. Learned counsel for the petitioner further relied upon a decision of the Apex Court reported in 1997 SCC (Crl.) 92 (D.K.Basu -vs.- State of West Bengal) and contended that the remand of the detenu was improper and that there is no valid remand since the guide-lines indicated in the said decision have not been complied with by the concerned Magistrate. The question whether the remand properly effected and in accordance with law is a matter to be agitated in a different proceeding and before a different Forum. If, really there was any failure to comply with the provisions of law with regard to remand of an accused, it is always open to the accused to question the same by initiating suitable proceedings.

11. In the case on hand, we