Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 1635 (MAD)

Ramasamy v. The Commissioner of Police & Another

2005-09-30

P.SATHASIVAM, S.SARDAR ZACKRIA HUSSAIN

body2005
Judgment :- (Habeas Corpus Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus, calling for records of first respondent in TPDA No. 3558 (No. 06/BDFGISV/05) dated 31-01-2005, setting aside the order of detention passed therein, directing the respondent to produce the detenu by name Vazhivittan, son of Ramasamy, who is now confined in Central Prison, Madurai, before this Court and setting him at liberty.) P. Sathasivam, J.,) The petitioner, father of the detenu, challenges the detention order dated 31-01-2005, detaining his son Vazhivittan as "Goonda" under Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Forest Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders, Slum Grabbers and Video Pirates Act, 1982 (Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982). 2. The detaining authority, namely, Commissioner of Police, Madurai, after noting the involvement of the detenu on 17-03-2004 in Crime No.299/2004 on the file of B-3 Teppakulam Police Station for offences under Sections 387 and 506 (ii) I.P.C.; an occurrence on 15-01-2005 in Crime No. 51/2005 on the file of B-4 Keeraithurai Police Station for offences under Sections 397 and 506 (ii) I.P.C.; and an occurrence on 17-01-2005 in Crime No. 113/2005 on the file of B-1 Vilakkuthoon Police Station for offences under Section 387 and 506 (ii) I.P.C as well as the ground case that had taken place on 18-01-2005 in Crime No. 119/2005 for offences under Sections 307, 379 and 506 (ii) I.P.C. and of the fact that the offences said to have been committed by the detenu are punishable under Chapter XVI, XVII and XXII of I.P.C., in order to prevent him from indulging any such prejudicial activities in future, detained him under Act 14/1982. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, at the foremost, submitted that there was no compelling necessity to detain the detenu as Goonda. With reference to the said contention, the learned counsel by drawing our attention to a statement made in para 5 of the grounds of detention, contended that there is no imminent possibility of the detenu being coming out on bail, hence the detention order is not warranted. We are unable to accept the said contention. A reading of para 5 of the order of detention makes it clear that the detaining authority was aware that the detenu was in remand and lodged in Central Prison on 18-01-2005. We are unable to accept the said contention. A reading of para 5 of the order of detention makes it clear that the detaining authority was aware that the detenu was in remand and lodged in Central Prison on 18-01-2005. He also noted that the detenu has filed bail application before the Judicial Magistrate-No.I, Madurai on 28-01-2005 and the same was pending. In view of the pendency of the bail petition and of the fact that the earlier adverse cases, he secured bail by orders of the Court, the detaining authority is fully justified in arriving at a conclusion that he is likely to be released on bail at any moment and in that event he will indulge in prejudicial activities in future and therefore due to compelling necessity, passed the impugned order of detention. We are satisfied that the detaining authority after taking note of all the relevant materials and satisfying himself considering his past antecedents of the detenu, detained him as Goonda under Act 14 of 1982. The contra argument of the counsel for the petitioner is liable to be rejected. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that there is no justification warranting detention of the detenu under Act 14/1982. Here again, we are unable to appreciate the said contention. The grounds of detention refers three earlier instances and those cases have been taken place during the period 17-03-2004 to 17-01-2005 and the detenu is concerned in the commission of offences punishable under Chapter XVI, XVII and XXII of I.P.C. In addition to the above referred 3 ground cases, since the detenu continued his activities and involved for offences under Sections 307, 379 and 506 (ii) I.P.C. on 18-01-2005, in the crowded public place and threatened the public by waving Aruval, due to which the nearby public panicked and ran away and the shop-keepers in and around the place closed their shops, traffic was disrupted for some time. All the above materials were duly considered by the detaining authority and after satisfying himself, passed the impugned order of detention which was confirmed by the Government within the prescribed time; hence the said contention is also liable to be rejected. 5. All the above materials were duly considered by the detaining authority and after satisfying himself, passed the impugned order of detention which was confirmed by the Government within the prescribed time; hence the said contention is also liable to be rejected. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner by drawing our attention to page 74 of the booklet supplied to the detenu, pointed out that in view of the fact that remand order was passed on 18-01-2005, however, in the body of the said order, it is stated that the date of remand as 18-01-2004, which shows non-application of mind on the part of the detaining authority and on this ground, the detention order is liable to be rejected. We verified page 74 of the booklet which is a remand order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate-No.I, Madurai dated 18-01-2005. After recording the presence of the accused and no ill-treatment or complaint against the police, the learned Magistrate remanded the accused Vazhivittan till 1-2-2005. It is not in dispute that the said order was passed by the learned Magistrate on 18-1-2005. However, in the body of the said order, particularly in the middle portion it is stated "date of remand: 18.1.2004". No doubt, instead of 18-1-2005, it is stated as 18-1-2004. First of all, it is not a document of the sponsoring authority or detaining authority. It is the order of Judicial Magistrate-No.I, Madurai. The mistake relating to year, namely, 2004 instead of 2005 occurred due to error on the part of the office of the Judicial Magistrate. For this, the detaining authority cannot be blamed. It is also not in dispute that the sponsoring authority or detaining authority can correct the date without the aid of the Court. The mistake relating to year, namely, 2004 instead of 2005 occurred due to error on the part of the office of the Judicial Magistrate. For this, the detaining authority cannot be blamed. It is also not in dispute that the sponsoring authority or detaining authority can correct the date without the aid of the Court. Though the learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on a decision of this Court in R. Karuppasamy v. The District Magistrate and District Collector, Coimbatore and another, reported in 2002 (1) MWN (Cr.)60, inasmuch as the mistake occurred in the order furnished by the Court and there is no error or mistake in any of the documents of the detaining authority, we are of the view that first of all the said decision is not applicable to the case on hand; secondly, the detenu was not put to any prejudice when he is very well aware that he is remanded to judicial custody till 1-2-2005 on the orders of the Magistrate on 18-1-2005. Accordingly, the said contention is also liable to be rejected. 6. Under these circumstances, we do not find any ground for interference; accordingly the petition fails and the same is dismissed.