Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 1844 (MAD)

Devi v. State rep. By the Inspector of Police

2008-06-18

M.CHOCKALINGAM, S.PALANIVELU

body2008
Judgment :- M. Chockalingam, J. Challenge is made to an order of the second respondent made on 12. 2007, whereby the petitioners husband Sudhakar @ Sudha was termed as a goonda, and detained under Act 14/82. 2. The Court perused the order under challenge along with the grounds on which it is being challenged. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and also the learned Additional Public Prosecutor on the contentions. 3. Concededly on the recommendation made by the sponsoring authority to detain one Sudhakar as a goonda under the provisions of Act 14/82, along with all the materials pertaining to Crime Nos.567/06 N3 Muthialpet PS, 599/2007 J5 Shastri Nagar PS, 2519/2007 T4 Madhuravoyal PS, 642/2007 J2 Adyar PS, 702/2007 J2 Adyar PS and 1129/2007 R9 Valasaravakkam PS and the materials pertaining to one ground case in Crime No.781/2007 J2 Adyar PS and other materials, the detaining authority has recorded his finding that he has arrived at the subjective satisfaction that the activities of the detenu were prejudicial to the maintenance of the public order and peace, and hence, he has got to be termed as a goonda, and apart from that, in order to prevent him from doing any such further activities in future, a necessity arose to detain him under Act 14/82, and accordingly, made the order, which is the subject matter of challenge before this Court. 4. Advancing arguments in support of the petition, the learned Counsel for the petitioner made the following points: (a) There was a pre-detention representation made on 11. 2007 by the petitioner which has actually been received by the authority; but, it was never considered at the time of passing the order on 12. 2007. Further, the police have registered a case in Crime No.781/2007 which is the ground case, for an occurrence that had taken place on 111. 2007 at 16.15 hours; but, the FIR would read that the actual occurrence has taken place at 18.15 hours, and thus, there was a major discrepancy. 5. Added further the learned Counsel that according to the sponsoring authority, the occurrence in Crime No.781/2007 has actually taken place on 111. 2007; but, the copy of the FIR which was placed before the detaining authority would clearly indicate that the Inspector of Police has signed the FIR only on 111. 2007. 5. Added further the learned Counsel that according to the sponsoring authority, the occurrence in Crime No.781/2007 has actually taken place on 111. 2007; but, the copy of the FIR which was placed before the detaining authority would clearly indicate that the Inspector of Police has signed the FIR only on 111. 2007. The learned Counsel would further add that these are all vital material particulars in which discrepancies were found; that if to be so, the detaining authority should have called for an explanation, but failed to do so, which would clearly indicate the non-application of mind, and hence, it has got to be set aside. 6. The Court heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor on all the above contentions. 7. After hearing both sides and looking into the materials available, this Court is of the considered opinion that it is a fit case where the Court has no option than to quash the order for the following reasons. Admittedly, there was a pre-detention representation made by the petitioner on 11. 2007, alleging that he was illegally detained even before the alleged offence; but, it was not at all considered. The order came to be passed on 12. 2007. Further, according to the sponsoring authority, the incident had taken place in Crime No.781/2007 at about 16.15 hours on 111. 2007. But, as could be seen from the FIR, it had actually taken place only at about 18.15 hours, and thus, as to the time of occurrence, there was a vital discrepancy. Added further, the occurrence, according to the sponsoring authority, in Crime No.781/2007 had taken place on 111. 2007; but, the Inspector of Police has signed the FIR on 111. 2007 itself. If really the incident had taken place on 111. 2007, how the Inspector of Police could sign the FIR on 111. 2007. It cannot be stated to be very minor discrepancy or omissions made. This Court is of the view that these are all vital particulars which would go to the root of the matter. In such circumstances, a duty was cast upon the detaining authority to call for clarification from the sponsoring authority, but not done so. This would be indicative of the fact that the detaining authority has not looked into the matter proper as expected by law. Hence, the impugned order has got to be quashed. 8. In such circumstances, a duty was cast upon the detaining authority to call for clarification from the sponsoring authority, but not done so. This would be indicative of the fact that the detaining authority has not looked into the matter proper as expected by law. Hence, the impugned order has got to be quashed. 8. Accordingly, this habeas corpus petition is allowed quashing the order of the second respondent. The detenu is directed to be released forthwith unless his presence is required in connection with any other case.