Poongodi v. The Secretary to Government (Home) Prohibition and Excise Department Secretariat Fort St.George
Case at a glance
Outcome
Set aside
For the reason aforesaid, the detention order is liable to beset aside and accordingly, the same is set aside
Provisions considered
- Constitution of India art. 226
- Indian Penal Code, 1860 ss. 336, 341, 392, 395, 397, 506(2)
Key paragraphs
- Para 66. Concededly, in the order of detention four adverse caseswere stated to be pending against the detenu, viz., Crime Nos.73of 2007, 438 of 2007, 478 of 2007 and 479 of 2007, but nowhere areference is made to Crime No.381 of 2007, which is stated to…
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED: 13.11.2007CORAM:THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.D.DINAKARANANDTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.REGUPATHIH.C.P.No.1148 of 2007 Poongodi .. PetitionerVs.
The Secretary to Government (Home) Prohibition and Excise Department Secretariat Fort St.George, Chennai-9.
The Commissioner of Police Greater Chennai Egmore, Chennai-8... RespondentsPRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue Habeas Corpus as stated therein. For Petitioner : Mr.V.GaneshFor Respondents : Mr.N.R.Elango Addl. Public ProsecutorO R D E R(Order of the Court was made by P.D.DINAKARAN,J.)The second respondent herein clamped an order of detention asagainst the detenu – Raji, son of Rajendran, as the said authorityarrived at the subjective satisfaction that the said detenu is aGoonda and he has to be detained under Section 3(1) of the TamilNadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, DrugOffenders, Forest Officers, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders, Sand Offenders, Slum Grabbers and Video Pirates Act, 1982 (TamilNadu Act 14 of 1982).2. Challenging the abovesaid detention, the mother of thedetenu has come forward with the present Habeas Corpus Petitionseeking a writ of habeas corpus to call for the records pertaining https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ to the detention order passed against the detenu by the secondrespondent in BDFGISSV.No.251 of 2007, dated 16.6.2007, set asidethe same and to direct the respondents to produce the body of thedetenu, now detained at Central Prison, Puzhal, before this Courtand to set him at liberty.3.1.
The order of detention dated 16.6.2007 was passed on thebasis of ground case in Crime No.488 of 2007 for allegedcommission of offences under Sections 341, 336, 397 and 506(2)IPC, complaint of which was lodged by one Rajendran. According to Rajendran, on 27.5.2007, while he was proceeding to KalashetraRoad near the Pillaiyar Temple junction a share auto bearingReg. No.TN 07 AE 8618 crossed him and stopped and eight persons, including the detenu were in it. Four of them got down from theshare auto. The associates of the detenu, Vijayakumar and Arulinserted hands into the shirt pocket of the complainant and tookaway cell phone and cash of Rs.200/- and threatened to kill him. When the detenu and others got into auto and tried to escape, thecomplainant raised hue and cry and hearing that again accused andhis associates got down from the auto and pelted stones on him. The public who were at the spot noticing the atrocious activitiesran for safer places out of fear of danger to their lives andproperties.
Based on the complaint given by him a case, as statedabove, was registered and the detenu was arrested. 3.2. Apart from the above, the detaining authority also tooknote of the four adverse cases pending against the detenu, viz.,i. Crime No.73 of 2007 registered on the file of Thiruvanmiyur Police Station for the offence punishableunder Sections 392 and 397 of IPC with reference to theoccurrence said to have taken place on 25.1.2007; ii. Crime No.438 of 2007 registered on the file of Thiruvanmiyur Police Station for the offence punishableunder Sections 392 and 397 of IPC with reference to theoccurrence said to have taken place on 11.5.2007;iii. Crime No.478 of 2007 registered on the file of Thiruvanmiyur Police Station for the offence punishableunder Sections 395 and 397 of IPC with reference to theoccurrence said to have taken place on 25.5.2007; and iv. Crime No.479 of 2007 registered on the file of Thiruvanmiyur Police Station for the offence punishableunder Sections 395 and 397 of IPC with reference to theoccurrence said to have taken place on 25.5.2007. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/
3.
The detaining authority, having satisfied that thedetenu is indulging in activities which are prejudicial tomaintenance of public order, passed the impugned order.4. Heard both sides. We have perused the materials producedbefore us.
The main contention put forth by the learned counsel forthe petitioner is that in the Special report dated 15.6.2007, thesponsoring authority referred to four cases said to be pendingagainst the detenu, viz., Crime Nos.73 of 2007, 381 of 2007, 478of 2007 and 479 of 2007, but there is no such Crime No.381 of 2007pending against him and the detaining authority has not appliedits mind to the above fact by seeking clarification of the samefrom the sponsoring authority before passing of the detentionorder.
Operative part
Concededly, in the order of detention four adverse caseswere stated to be pending against the detenu, viz., Crime Nos.73of 2007, 438 of 2007, 478 of 2007 and 479 of 2007, but nowhere areference is made to Crime No.381 of 2007, which is stated to bepending against the detenu as per the special report dated15.6.2007. When there is such contradiction in the crime numberreferred to, the detaining authority ought to have sought forclarification from the sponsoring authority. Non appreciation ofthe said vital fact vitiates the order of detention. For the reason aforesaid, the detention order is liable to beset aside and accordingly, the same is set aside. This petitionis allowed. The order of detention dated 16.6.2007 is set aside. The detenu is directed to be set at liberty forthwith unless hispresence is required connection with in any other crime. Nocosts. Sd/-Asst. Registrar./true copy/Sub Asst. Registrar.sasi https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ To:1.The Secretary to Government(Home)Prohibition and Excise Department State of TamilnaduFort St.George, Chennai-9.2.The Commissioner of Police Greater Chennai, Egmore, Chennai-8. 3. The Superintendent, Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai.4. The Joint Secretary to GovernmentPublic (Law and order) DepartmentFort Saint George, Chennai-9.5.The Public Prosecutor High Court, Madras.H.C.P.No.1148 of 2007VG (CO)kk 19/11
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: For the reason aforesaid, the detention order is liable to beset aside and accordingly, the same is set aside
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Constitution of India — art. 226; Indian Penal Code, 1860 — ss. 336, 341, 392, 395, 397, 506(2).
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.