Back
2010 Supreme(Mad) 4543
High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M. CHOCKALINGAM & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.S. KARNAN
Mrs. Kutti
Versus
The State of Tamil Nadu rep. by its Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department & Another
H.C.P. No.1417 of 2010
Decided On : 21-10-2010
For the Petitioner:A. Laxmi Raj Rathnam, Advocate.
For the Respondents: M. Babu Muthu Meeran, Additional Public Prosecutor.
The Detaining Authority's observation must be supported by material and cannot be solely based on impression or inference without any basis or cogent materials.
Headnote:
Detention Order - Challenge by Sister of Detenu - Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982 - Sections 454, 380, 511, 341, 294(b), 336, 427, 397, 506(ii) of the Indian Penal Code - The court set aside the detention order due to lack of material supporting the Detaining Authority's observation.
Fact of the Case:
The sister of the detenu challenged the detention order of her brother, who was ordered to be detained as a Goonda under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982. The detenu was involved in twelve adverse cases and one ground case, and the Detaining Authority passed the detention order based on the subjective satisfaction that the detenu's activities were prejudicial to the maintenance of public order.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the Detaining Authority's observation lacked material and was only an expression of impression without any basis or cogent materials, leading to the setting aside of the detention order.
Issues: The main contention was the timing of the detention order in relation to the detenu's bail petitions and the lack of material supporting the Detaining Authority's observation.
Ratio Decidendi: The court set aside the detention order due to the Detaining Authority's observation being without any material and only an expression of impression without any basis or cogent materials.
Final Decision: The Habeas Corpus Petition was allowed, setting aside the detention order passed by the second respondent, and the detenu was directed to be set at liberty forthwith unless his custody/detention is required in connection with any other case.
(Order of the Court was made by M. CHOCKALINGAM,J)
1. This petition is brought forth by the sister of the detenu challenging the order of the second respondent in 72/BDFGISSV/2010 dated 10.4.2010, whereby her brother Sasi @ Sasi Kumar was ordered to be detained as a Goonda under the provisions of the Act 14 of 1982.
2. The Court heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and looked into the materials available on record, in particular, the order under challenge.
3. It is not in controversy that pursuant to the recommendation made by the Sponsoring Authority that the detenu is involved in twelve adverse cases viz. (i) Crime No.430 of 2000 registered by T-15 SRMC P.S. for the offences under Sections 454, 380 of the Indian Penal Code; (ii) Crime No.23 of 2001 registered by T-15 SRMC P.S. for the offences under Sections 454, 380 of the Indian Penal Code; (iii) Crime No.425 of 2001 registered by T-5 Thiruverkadu P.S. for the offences under Sections 454, 380 of the Indian Penal Code; (iv) Crime No.347 of 2001 registered by T-15 SRMC P.S. for the offences under Sections 454, 380 of the Indian Penal Code; (v) Crime No.453 of 2001 registered by T-15 SRMC P.S. for the offences under Sections 454, 380 of the Indian Penal Code; (vi) Crime No.454 of 2001 registered by T-15 SRMC P.S. for the offences under Sections 454, 511 of the Indian Penal Code; (vii) Crime No.838 of 2001 registered by T-4 Maduravoyal P.S. for the offences under Sections 454, 380 of the Indian Penal Code; (viii)Crime No.897 of 2001 registered by T-4 Maduravoyal P.S. for the offences under Sections 454, 380 of the Indian Penal Code; (ix) Crime No.472 of 2001 registered by T-15 SRMC P.S. for the offences under Sections 454, 380 of the Indian Penal Code; (x) Crime No.1134 of 2001 registered by T-10 Thirumullaivoyal P.S. for the offences under Sections 454, 380 of the Indian Penal Code; (xi) Crime No.72 of 2010 registered by T-12 Poonamalee P.S. for the offences under Sections 454, 380 of the Indian Penal Code; (xii) Crime No.85 of 2010 registered by T-12 Poonamalee P.S. for the offences under Sections 454, 380 of the Indian Penal Code and one ground case in Crime No.162 of 2010 registered by T-12 Poonamallee police station for the offences under Sections 341, 294(b), 336, 427, 397, 506(ii) of the Indian Penal Code for the incident that had taken place on 18.3.2010 and the detenu was arrested on 19.3.2010, the Detaining Authority, on scrutiny of materials placed, passed the detention order, after arriving at the subjective satisfaction that the activities of the detenu were prejudicial to the maintenance of public order, which is the subject matter of challenge before this Court.
4. The only contention put forth by the learned counsel for the petitioner, which, according to him was strong enough to set aside the detention order is that the detenu moved for bail in 11th and 12th adverse cases viz. Crime Nos.72 and 85 of 2010 before the Judicial Magistrate No.II, Poonamallee and the same were dismissed on 8.4.2010, but the detention order came to be passed on 10.4.2010. Apart from this, the detenu has not moved for any bail in ground case in Crime No.162 of 2010, which was registered for the grave offence under Section 397 of the Indian Penal Code. But the Authority has observed that there is a real possibility of the detenu coming out on bail, which is non-application of mind on the part of the Detaining Authority.
5. This Court heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor on the above contentions and paid its anxious consideration on the submissions made.
6. As could be seen from the available materials, the Detaining Authority has made the order of detention terming the detenu as a Goonda, on the strength of the materials placed before him pertaining to twelve adverse cases and one ground case as referred to above, and has recorded the subjective satisfaction that the activities of the detenu were prejudicial to the maintenance of public order.
