Prabha v. The State of Tamil Nadu
Case at a glance
Provisions considered
- Constitution of India art. 226
- Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act, 1937 s. 32
- TamilNadu Prohibition Act, 1937 s. 32
Key paragraphs
- Para 33. At the foremost, the learned counsel for the petitioner bydrawing our attention to the reference made in paragraph 3 of thegrounds of detention viz., after destroying the remaining I.D arrackand fermented wash a "certificate" was prepared to that effect, submitted that no such certificate…
Judgment
In the High Court of Judicature at MadrasDated:13.06.2006Coram: The Hon'ble Mr.Justice P.SATHASIVAMandThe Hon'ble Mr.Justice V.DHANAPALANHabeas Corpus Petition No.140 of 2006 Prabha .. Petitionervs.
The State of Tamil Nadu, rep. by its Secretary to Government, Prohibition and Excise Department, Fort St. George, Chennai-9.
The Commissioner of Police, Greater Chennai, Egmore, Chennai-8. .. Respondents Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of Indiapraying for issuance of writ of habeas corpus to call for therecords relating to the detention order passed by the secondrespondent in No.559/2005 dated 23.12.2005, quash the same and directthe respondents to produce the body of the detenu Sivaraj, son of Vadivel, now detained at Central Prison, Chennai before this Courtand set him at liberty. For petitioner : Mr.S.Doraisamy for Mr.V.ElangovanFor respondents : Mr.M.Babu Muthu Meeran, Addl. Public ProsecutorORDER(Order of the Court was made by P.SATHASIVAM,J.,)The petitioner, who is the wife of the detenu by name Sivaraj, who was detained as a "Bootlegger" as contemplated under Section 3(1) of the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Forest Offenders, Goondas, ImmoralTraffic Offenders and Slum Grabbers Act, 1982 (in short "Tamil NaduAct 14 of 1982") by the impugned order of detention dated 23.12.2005,challenges the same in this petition. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/
2. Heard both sides.
At the foremost, the learned counsel for the petitioner bydrawing our attention to the reference made in paragraph 3 of thegrounds of detention viz., after destroying the remaining I.D arrackand fermented wash a "certificate" was prepared to that effect, submitted that no such certificate was prepared as per Section 32of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act, 1937 and the only documentavailable is destruction mahazar, which finds place at page 56 of thepaper book supplied to the detenu. According to him, in the absenceof the certificate as stated in paragraph 3 of the detention order, it is presumed that the detaining authority has not applied his mindwhile passing the detention order. He has also heavily relied on thedecision of this Court dated 25.09.2003 in HCP No.2580 of 2002. Inthat case, before the Division bench, a similar contention wasraised. A perusal of the details mentioned in the said decisionshows that in that case also the destruction mahazar alone wasprepared and a copy was supplied to the detenu.
However, as in thepresent case, the detaining authority therein referred to the saiddocument as a certificate prepared under Section 32 of The TamilNadu Prohibition Act, 1937. The Division Bench after finding thatthe document available in the paper book does not amount tocertificate in terms of Section 32 of The Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act,1937 and after holding that the detaining authority has not appliedhis mind, quashed the detention order. 4. On going through the factual details in our case, particularly the reference made in para 3 as well as the documentavailable at page 56 of the paper book, we are of the view that thedecision relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner isdirectly applicable to the case on hand. Inasmuch as the detainingauthority has referred the destruction mahazar as a certificate interms of Section 32 of The Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act, 1937, we aresatisfied that the detaining authority has not properly applied hismind and on that ground the impugned detention order is liable to bequashed and accordingly, the same is quashed.5.
The Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and the impugned orderof detention is set aside. The detenu is directed to be set atliberty forthwith from the custody unless he is required in someother case or cause. raaSd/Asst. Registrar/true copy/Sub Asst. Registrar https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ To1.The Commissioner of Police, Greater Chennai, Egmore, Chennai-8.2. The Secretary to Government, State of Tamil Nadu, Prohibition and Excise Department, Fort St. George, Chennai-9.3. The Superintendent, Central Prison, Chennai. (In duplicate for communication to detenu)
The Joint Secretary to Government, Public (Law and Order)Fort St. George, Chennai-9.
The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.+ one cc to Mr.V.Elangovan, Advocate Sr.No.24216.PLI (CO)RSM/19.6.2006 H.C.P.No.140 of 2006
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.