Back
2010 Supreme(Mad) 4689
High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M. CHOCKALINGAM & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.S. KARNAN
Venugopal
Versus
State of Tamilnadu & Another
H.C.P. No.1273 of 2010
Decided On : 29-10-2010
For the Petitioner:C.M. Gunasekaran, Advocate.
For the Respondents: M. Babu Muthu Meeran, Additional Public Prosecutor.
The Detaining Authority must properly scrutinize the materials and arrive at subjective satisfaction before passing a detention order.
Headnote:
Detention Order - Habeas Corpus Petition - The court set aside the detention order passed under the provisions of Act 14 of 1982, as the Detaining Authority failed to properly scrutinize the materials and arrive at subjective satisfaction.
Fact of the Case:
The detenu was ordered to be detained as a Goonda under the provisions of Act 14 of 1982 based on his involvement in adverse and ground cases. The petitioner challenged the detention order citing discrepancies in the materials and non-application of mind by the Detaining Authority.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the Detaining Authority failed to properly scrutinize the materials and arrive at subjective satisfaction, leading to discrepancies and non-application of mind. As a result, the Habeas Corpus Petition was allowed, and the detention order was set aside.
Issues: Discrepancies in the materials, non-application of mind by the Detaining Authority
Ratio Decidendi: The Detaining Authority must properly scrutinize the materials and arrive at subjective satisfaction before passing a detention order.
Final Decision: The Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed, setting aside the detention order passed by the second respondent in BDFGISSV No.263 of 2010 dated 4.5.2010. The detenu is 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 father of the detenu challenging the order of the second respondent in BDFGISSV No.263 of 2010 dated 4.5.2010, whereby the detenu Thillai Anandan @ Anandan 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 one adverse case viz. Crime No.280 of 2010 registered by J.9 Thuraipakkam Police Station for the offences under Sections 147, 341, 324, 307 of the Indian Penal Code @ 147, 341 and 302 of the Indian Penal Code and one ground case in Crime No.283 of 2010 registered by J-9 Thuraipakkam Police Station for the offences under Sections 341, 324, 392 read with 397, 336, 427 and 506 (2) of the Indian Penal Code for the incident that had taken place on 4.4.2010 and the detenu was arrested on 5.4.2010, 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. While advancing arguments on behalf of the petitioner, learned counsel would submit that the booklet contains a special report commencing from 227 ending with 229, where the Investigator has stated that the complaint was given on 8.4.2010, but from the F.I.R., as found in page No.93 of the booklet, it could be seen that the complaint was given on 1710 hours on 4.4.2010, the date of occurrence. Apart from this, learned counsel also pointed out that in the very same report, the Investigator claims that he arrested the detenu on 5.4.2010. Thus, it is not only contradictory but also discrepant as to the material. A clarification should have been called for by the Detaining Authority, but failed to do so.
5. Learned counsel added further that In page No.49 of the booklet, it is seen that the victim succumbed to injuries on 9.4.2010. But, contrarily, as found in page Nos.185 and 187 remand orders dated 6.4.2010, it is stated that the victim succumbed to injuries. It is pertinent to point out that the remand order came into existence on 6.4.2010 and thus, it is quite indicative of the fact of non-application of mind. All these materials placed were to be properly scrutinized before arriving at subjective satisfaction. But the Detaining Authority has failed to do so.
6. This Court heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor on the above contentions and paid its anxious consideration on the submissions made.
7. 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 one adverse case and one ground case as referred to above and has recorded its subjective satisfaction that the activities of the detenu were prejudicial to the maintenance of public order.
8. As could be seen above, the booklet contains a special report commencing from 227 ending with 229, where the Investigator has stated that the complaint was given on 8.4.2010, but from the F.I.R., as found in page No.93 of the booklet, it could be seen that the complaint was given on 17.10 hours on 4.4.2010, the date of occurrence. Apart from this, in the very same report, the Investigator claims that he arrested the detenu on 5.4.2010. Thus, it is not only contradictory but also discrepant as to the material. A clarification should have been called for by the Detaining Authority, but failed to do so.
9. Added further, In page No.49 of the booklet, it is seen that the victim succumbed to injuries on 9.4.2010. But, contrarily, as found in page Nos.185
