Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 2151 (MAD)

Padmavathi v. State of Tamil Nadu & Another

2003-12-29

M.KARPAGAVINAYAGAM, R.BANUMATHI

body2003
Judgment :- M.Karpagavinayagam, J. The detention order dated 08.04.2003 clamped upon the detenu Vadivu @ Sekar @ Military Sekar, branding him as a Goonda, is under challenge before this Court. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner would raise the following three grounds, while assailing the impugned order. (i) The representation sent on behalf of the detenu was received by the authorities on 29.04.2003 and ultimately it was rejected only on 14.05.2003. As such, there is undue delay in considering the representation. (ii) Though there are two adverse cases against the detenu apart from the ground case, the detaining authority had not taken into consideration the imminent possibility of the detenu coming out on bail in the two adverse cases while the detenu is, in fact, in remand in respect of those adverse cases, but had only considered the imminent possibility in respect of the ground case, which is one for the offences under Sections 302 and 379 IPC. The opinion about the imminent possibility of the detenu coming out on bail expressed by the detaining authority, is not factually correct. If the pendency of the second adverse case, which pertains to a serious offence had been considered, the detaining authority would have come to the conclusion that there is no imminent possibility of the detenu coming out on bail. So, this non-application of mind on the part of the detaining authority would vitiate the detention order. (iii) There is no material to show that public order was in any way disturbed and the alleged incident is one, which would at best create law and order problem and as such, the requirements of the definition of 'public order' contained in Section 2 are not satisfied. On this ground also, the detention order is vitiated. 3. We have heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor as well. 4. Both the counsel have argued at length. They would refer to several judgments to substantiate their respective pleas. 5. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the rival contentions urged on either side. 6. Firstly, it was contended that there is an inordinate delay in considering the representation. The chart produced by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor would show that the representation was received on 29.04.2003. They would refer to several judgments to substantiate their respective pleas. 5. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the rival contentions urged on either side. 6. Firstly, it was contended that there is an inordinate delay in considering the representation. The chart produced by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor would show that the representation was received on 29.04.2003. Remarks were called for on 30.04.2003 and the detaining authority after receiving the remarks from the sponsoring authority on 05.05.2003, sent the report on 07.05.2003 and after receipt of the remarks on 09.05.2003, the file was placed on 12.05.2003. Ultimately, the Minister concerned rejected the representation on 13.05.2003. As such, there is no delay. 7. Though there is a delay between 30.04.2003 and 05.05.2003 in getting the remarks from the sponsoring authority, 01.05.2003, 03.05.2003 and 04.05.2003 happened to be Government Holidays. Similarly, 10.05.2003 and 11.05.2003 were Saturday and Sunday. As such, in our view, there is no delay in considering the representation. Even assuming that there is delay, the same has been properly explained. 8. The second point, which is urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner, relates to non consideration of the adverse cases. One of the two adverse cases pertains to a serious offence, namely, under Section 302 IPC and the fact that there was no imminent possibility of the detenu coming out on bail in that case, has not been considered by the detaining authority. As pointed out by the learned Additional Public prosecutor, the detaining authority has simply mentioned the offences, namely, Sections 394, 397 read with 392 and 302 IPC in the grounds of detention. Admittedly, no crime number is mentioned. 9. It is noticed from the materials that the detenu was arrested on 26.02.2003 and on his confession, his involvement in three cases, namely, ground case, which has been registered under Section 302 with reference to the occurrence took place on 13.02.2003, the first adverse case, which is registered under Section 379 IPC relating to the occurrence took place on 19.06.2002 and the second adverse case in respect of the offences under Sections 302 and 379 IPC in relation to the occurrence took place on 17.07.2002 came to be known. But the detaining authority, without mentioning the crime numbers, stated in the grounds of detention that there is imminent possibility of the detenu coming out on bail in these cases of serious offences. 10. But the detaining authority, without mentioning the crime numbers, stated in the grounds of detention that there is imminent possibility of the detenu coming out on bail in these cases of serious offences. 10. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, in Dharmendra Suganchand Chilawat ..vs.. Union of India (1990 SCC (Cri) 249) and Kannan @ Kannappan ..vs.. State of Tamil Nadu and another ( 1992(1) Crimes 1160 ), this Court has observed that non-consideration of serious adverse cases, while considering the imminent possibility of the detenu coming out on bail, would amount to non-application of mind on the part of the detaining authority and would vitiate the order of detention. 11. However, those cases, in our view, would not apply to the facts of the present case because the first adverse case is one registered for the offence punishable under section 379 IPC and the second adverse case is one for offences punishable under Sections 302 and 379 IPC. But the ground case would relate to the occurrence which took place on 13.02.2003 in Mahabalipuram Road, which resulted in registration of the case for the offence punishable under Section 394 IPC which was later on altered into one under Sections 394, 397 IPC read with 392 and 302 IPC. Thus, it is clear that the ground case is a very serious one when compared with the adverse cases. 12. Further, as pointed out by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, no crime number has been mentioned. Though there is no specific mention in the grounds of detention about the remand in respect of all the three cases, the arrest card produced before this Court would indicate that the detenu is in remand in all the three cases. In that view of the matter, we are of the opinion that we cannot say that the detaining authority has not considered the other adverse cases, which are less serious cases than the ground case, which is grave in nature. Therefore, the second ground also would fail. 13. Thirdly, it is said that there is no material to clamp the detention order upon the detenu as there was no public order disturbance. But, on going through the pages 393 and 397 of the booklet, which are the statements of Vijayarangan and Vimala, who are residents of villages nearby, it is clear that there was a public disturbance. 13. Thirdly, it is said that there is no material to clamp the detention order upon the detenu as there was no public order disturbance. But, on going through the pages 393 and 397 of the booklet, which are the statements of Vijayarangan and Vimala, who are residents of villages nearby, it is clear that there was a public disturbance. The relevant portions of the statements are as follows:- 14. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, these statements have been recorded from the witnesses only on 27.02.2003, whereas the occurrence took place on 13.02.2003 and the accused was arrested on 26.02.2003. But, delay in examination of these witnesses would not be a ground to discard the statements, which have been obtained by the sponsoring authority, and on the basis of these statements, the sponsoring authority has sent a report requesting the detaining authority to pass an order of detention branding the detenu as a goonda. So, on the basis of those materials only, the detaining authority has applied its mind fully and passed the order of detention. It is contended that these materials may be insufficient. But, sufficiency cannot be gone into by this Court, especially when the subjective satisfaction has been arrived at by the sponsoring authority on the basis of the available materials. 15. In view of the foregoing reasonings, we are of the considered opinion that all the three grounds urged by the counsel for the petitioner would fail and consequently, we are constrained to confirm the detention order. Hence, the Habeas Corpus Petition is dismissed.