Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2001 DIGILAW 112 (MAD)

Nithya @ Nithiyanandam v. State of Tamil Nadu

2001-01-30

A.S.VENKATACHALA MOORTHY, K.GNANAPRAKASAM

body2001
Judgment : 1. The order of detention 2.8.2001 passed by the second respondent in Reference No. BDFGIS No. 77 of 2001 is questioned on the ground that there are serious infirmities and that the same has to be set aside. 2. Firstly, the learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that in the plan (rough sketch page 35 of the paper book) the crime number is not mentioned. As far as this submission is concerned we have to point out that the land marks in that area and every other details have been correctly noted and described at the bottom of the said plan. Non-mentioning of the crime number in the said plan cannot be held that there was non-application of mind on the part of the detaining authority. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner then would contend that the sponsoring authority submitted the papers on 1.8.2001 and the detention order was passed on 2.8.2001. According to the learned counsel it would be rather difficult to accept that the detaining authority would have examined the matter and fully applied his mind and passed the detention order. We do not find any basis for the petitioner to assume so. We have no hesitation to reject this submission. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that while page number 13 of the paper book does not contain the crime number, the translated version of the same at page 17 contains the crime number and this would only show that the detaining authority before passing the detention order did not apply his mind. Here again, we do not find any substance since each and every other details in the English version as well as in the Tamil are exact. 6. The next point raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the occurrence with reference to the ground case was on 20.7.2001 and the printed F.I.R format bears the number 396526. The occurrence with reference to the supporting case was on 19.7.2001 and the F.I.R. format contains the number 396571. According to the learned counsel from the above, particularly, if one examines the serial number given in the F.I.R. format, it can be seen that the ground case was registered earlier and the supporting case was registered later and in these circumstances the detaining authority should have called for the additional affidavit by way of clarification. 7. According to the learned counsel from the above, particularly, if one examines the serial number given in the F.I.R. format, it can be seen that the ground case was registered earlier and the supporting case was registered later and in these circumstances the detaining authority should have called for the additional affidavit by way of clarification. 7. We find it difficult to accept this contention for the reason that the Crime number in the supporting case is 1534 of 2001 while in the case ground case it is 1540 of 2001. The Court is concerned only about the crime numbers. That apart, the F.I.R. formats are kept in a book form and each book contains 25 leafs. That being so, nothing turns on those facts in favour of the petitioner. 8. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that page 2 of the paper book, particularly, right hand side top of the same is not clear and it had resulted in great prejudice to him and that he was not in a position to send an effective representation. We do not agree with the learned counsel for the petitioner since we find that the document can be read and fully understood. Merely because there is some dark portion at the right hand side top of the said document this court cannot come to the conclusion that the same had prevented the petitioner to understand the contents of the documents. 9. Having found that all the contentions raised by the petitioner have to fail, this court has no hesitation to dismiss this H.C.P. Hence, this H.C.P.No. 1248 of 2001 is dismissed.