Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 1225 (MAD)

Vijayan v. The Commissioner of Police & Another

2004-09-22

K.P.SIVASUBRAMANIAM, P.K.MISRA

body2004
Judgment :- P.K. Misra, J. Heard Mr.J.I.Rajkumar Roberts for the petitioner as well as Mr.Abudu Kumar Rajarathnam for the respondents. 2. The father of the detenu has filed this petition challenging the detention of his son Anandan as Goonda under Act 14 of 1982. 3. Even though several contentions have been raised, it is unnecessary to refer to all such contentions as in our opinion, the contention relating to non-application of mind by the detaining authority, appears to be sound enough to allow this petition. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner refers to the grounds of detention and invites our attention to the following portion, "The Inspector of Police during the course of investigation examined Tvl. Anandan and Sureshkumar @ Suresh. Their statements were also recorded." The learned counsel for the petitioner states that as a matter of fact, the booklet, which was supposed to have been placed before the detaining authority at the time of passing the order of preventive detention does not indicate that the statement of Sureshkumar @ Suresh had been recorded. However, the extracted portion indicates as if the detaining authority had gone through the statement of Anandan as well as Sureshkumar @ Suresh. In other words, even though the statement of Sureshkumar had not been recorded, the detaining authority has indicated, as if the statement of Sureshkumar had been recorded. This would clearly show the non-application of mind by the detaining authority and would indicate as if the order has been passed in a mechanical manner. 5. The learned Government Advocate has placed reliance upon a decision of this Court dated 12.9.2002 in HCP No.834 of 2002 and contended that there is no illegality in the order of detention. In the said case, the detaining authority had indicated in the order that the statement of the accused had been recorded. However, copy of such statement had not been furnished. Repelling the contention of the counsel for the detenu that copy of such statement required to be furnished, the Court observed that the detaining authority has not relied upon the statement, but merely referred to that statement. 6. The contention in the present case is not relating to non-supply of any document, but relates to application of mind of the detaining authority to the relevant facts available at that time. 6. The contention in the present case is not relating to non-supply of any document, but relates to application of mind of the detaining authority to the relevant facts available at that time. Since the detaining authority has referred to a non-existent material, in our opinion that amounts to non-application of mind, which has its effect on the order of detention. 7. Accordingly, we allow the habeas corpus petition and the order of detention is set aside. The detenu is directed to be set at liberty forthwith, unless his custody is required in any other case or cause.