Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 1487 (MAD)

Raja v. State of Tamil Nadu & Another

2005-09-05

P.D.DINAKARAN, S.K.KRISHNAN

body2005
Judgment :- (Petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a writ of habeas corpus.) P.D. Dinakaran, J. Petitioner is the cousin brother of the detenu Mani, son of Anandappan. Petitioner seeks direction to the respondents to produce the body of the detenu, now detained in Central Prison, Palayamkottai, before this Court and set him at liberty by calling for the records in H.S.(M)Contdl.No.16/2005, dated 31.3.2005 on the file of the second respondent and quash the same. 2. On 12.1.2005 at about 6.45 hours at Keelathattamparai on the dry land of one Chinnathambiya Pillai, while one Lingasamy, the younger brother of Balamurugan was proceeding towards the stone quarry at Thattaparai, the detenu and his four associates armed with deadly weapons, formed themselves into an unlawful assembly, wrongly waylaid the said Lingasamy and murdered him in a gruesome manner by cutting and stabbing all over his body. Due to their activities and intimidation they created panic among the passers-by, agricultural laborers and coolies. The detenu and his associates cautioned the eye witnesses of the occurrence by whirling the weapons not to come close to them. The normal life of the residents of the area was paralysed and the place looked like a desert. In this connection the brother of the victim by name Balamurugan lodged a complaint before the Police and a case in crime No.31 of 2005 under sections 147, 148, 341 and 302 IPC on the file of the Tattaparai Police Station was registered against the detent and others. 3. Taking into consideration the above ground case and one other adverse cases registered against the detenu, the detaining authority had passed the order of detention on 31.3.2005 terming the detenu as a Goonda, under Section 3(1) of the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drug-Offenders, Forest-Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders, Slum Grabbers and Video Pirates Act, 1982. Hence, the above petition. 4. The main ground on which the order of detention is challenged by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the sponsoring authority has sworn to an affidavit dated 29.3.2005 and forwarded the same to the detaining authority with the materials. Hence, the above petition. 4. The main ground on which the order of detention is challenged by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the sponsoring authority has sworn to an affidavit dated 29.3.2005 and forwarded the same to the detaining authority with the materials. Learned counsel submits that if the affidavit is dated 29.3.2005, then the material i.e., order extending the remand dated 31.3.2005 could not have been forwarded to the detaining authority and that the sponsoring authority could have forwarded only such of those documents which came into existence prior to 29.3.2005. In support of his contention learned counsel for the petitioner drew our attention to page No.118 of the paper book, wherein it is seen that the order extending remand is dated 31.3.2005. 5. We are unable to understand as to how the sponsoring authority, who forwarded the materials on 29.3.2005 with his affidavit was able to forward the document dated 31.3.2005 prior to its coming into existence. 6. Learned Additional public Prosecutor submits that the said document was forwarded by the sponsoring authority to the detaining authority prior to the date of order of detention. 7. If the said document was subsequently produced before the detaining authority by the sponsoring authority, it is but natural for the sponsoring authority to have produced it with a covering letter or by filing an additional affidavit. There is no such document produced before us to hold that the document dated 31.3.2005 was produced before the detaining authority before passing the order of detention on 31.3.2005. Similar view has been taken by this Court earlier in the decision reported in 2000(2) Law Weekly (Crl) 684 (Alagar Vs. The State of Tamil Nadu, etc. & another). On this sole ground we are of the view that the order of detention has to be set aside and accordingly, it is set aside. 8. Consequently, the habeas corpus petition is allowed. The detention order is quashed and the detent is ordered to be released forthwith, unless he is required in connection with any other case.