The necessity of physical production of the accused before the Magistrate for remand or remand extension is crucial for the validity of detention orders.

(C. Nagappan, J.)

1. The wife of the detenu Madhavan is the petitioner in this Habeas Corpus Petition and she has challenged the order of detention passed by the second respondent, in No.9/BDFGISSV/2010 dated 29.01.2010.

2. On the recommendation made by the Sponsoring Authority citing nine adverse cases in Crime No.82/2009, V-1, Villivakkam Police Station, Crime No.273/2009, T-9, Pattabhiram Police Station, Crime No.449/2009, S-8, Adambakkam Police Station, Crime No.550/2009, S-8, Adambakkam Police Station, Crime No.821/2009, S-7, Madipakkam Police Station, Crime No.823/2009, S-7, Madipakkam Police Station, Crime No.519/2009, T-11, Thiruninravur Police Station, Crime No.524/2009, T-11, Thiruninravur Police Station, Crime No.584/2009, T-11, Thiruninravur Police Station and the ground case in Crime No.16/2010, T-11, Thiruninravur Police Station, and after looking into the materials available, the second respondent, the Commissioner of Police, Chennai City Sub-urban Area, St.Thomas Mount, Chennai-600 016, formed an opinion that the detenu Madhavan was to be termed as GOONDA since his activities are prejudicial to the maintenance of public order as contemplated under Section 2(1)(f) of the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982 and in order to prevent him from indulging in such activities in future, the Order of detention, dated 29.01.2010, was passed. The said Order is under challenge in this petition.

3. The order of detention is challenged on various grounds. The main submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the detaining authority, in paragraph No.3 of the grounds of detention, has observed that the detenu was arrested on 10.01.2010 and produced before the Judicial Magistrate-II, Thiruvallur on 11.01.2010 and remanded till 25.01.2010 in the ground case viz. Crime No.16/2010 and his remand period was further extended up to 08.02.2010; that and the said observation with regard to the extension of remand in the ground case is not supported by material and that hence the order of detention is vitiated.

4. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor submits that the order remanding the detenu in the ground case was made on 11.01.2010 and a copy of the same has been supplied to the detenu; that on 25.01.2010, the detenu/accused was not produced in the said case and the Judicial Magistrate-II, Thiruvallur, passed an order recording the nonproduction of the accused and directing the authorities to produce him on 08.02.2010; that a copy of the said order is found in page No.181 of the booklet and that based on the said order, the observation regarding extension of remand in the ground case has been made.

5. There is no controversy with regard to the date of arrest of the detenu in the ground case in Crime No.16/2010 and his initial remand on 11.01.2010 for the period upto 25.01.2010. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the observation in the grounds of detention that the remand was extended till 08.02.2010 is not supported by material. The document to which our attention was drawn by the Additional Public Prosecutor as the material for the said observation, is found in page No.181 of the booklet and the same is sought to be interpreted as an order extending the remand of the detenu. The order dated 25.01.2010 passed by the Judicial Magistrate-II, Thiruvallur, reads as follows:-

"Accused not produced. Inform authorities to produce the accused on 8.2.2010."

The above order is not one extending the remand of the detenu. The detaining authority has wrongly construed the above order as one extending the remand of the detenu up to 08.02.2010. Had the detaining authority applied its mind, it would have observed that the accused was not produced, but, however, he was directed to be produced on 08.02.2010. Failure to do so, shows non-application of mind on the part of the detaining authority, which vitiates the order of detention and on that ground alone the order of detention is liable to be set