Jegannathan v. The State of Tamil Nadu
Case at a glance
Provisions considered
Key paragraphs
- Para 33. At the foremost, the learned counsel for the petitioner by drawing our attention to the reference made in paragraph 3 of the grounds of detention viz., the remaining I.D arrack and fermented wash were destroyed at the spot a "certificate" was prepared to that…
Judgment
In the High Court of Judicature at MadrasDated:20.06.2006Coram: The Hon'ble Mr. Justice P. SATHASIVAMandThe Hon'ble Mr. Justice V.DHANAPALANHabeas Corpus Petition No.261 of 2006 Jegannathan .. 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 India praying for issuance of writ of habeas corpus to call for the entire records, related to petitioner's detention under Tamil NaduAct 14 of 1982 vide detention order dated 27.01.2006 on the file of the second respondent herein made in proceedings No.30/2006, quash the same as illegal and consequently direct the respondents hereinto produce the said petitioner namely Jegannathan before this Courtand set him at liberty. For petitioner : Mr.C.C.ChellappanFor respondents : Mr.M.Babu Muthu Meeran, Addl. Public ProsecutorORDER(Order of the Court was made by P. SATHASIVAM,J.,)The petitioner by name Jegannathan, who was detained as a"Bootlegger" as contemplated under Section 3 (1) of the Tamil NaduPrevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Forest Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders and SlumGrabbers Act, 1982 (in short "Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982") by the impugned order of detention dated 27.01.200, challenges the same in this petition. 2. Heard both sides. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/
At the foremost, the learned counsel for the petitioner by drawing our attention to the reference made in paragraph 3 of the grounds of detention viz., the remaining I.D arrack and fermented wash were destroyed at the spot a "certificate" was prepared to that effect, submitted that no such certificate was prepared asper Section 32 of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act, 1937 and the only document available is destruction mahazar. According to him, in the absence of the certificate as stated in paragraph 3 of the detention order, it is presumed that the detaining authority has not applied his mind while passing the detention order. He has also heavily relied on the decision of this Court dated 25.09.2003 in HCP No.2580of 2002, which was followed by this Court in HCP No.140 of 2006 byan order dated 13.06.2006. In that case, before the DivisionBench, a similar contention was raised. A perusal of the details mentioned in the said decision shows that in that case also the destruction mahazar alone was prepared and a copy was supplied to the detenu.
However, as in the present case, the detaining authority therein referred to the said document as a certificate prepared under Section 32 of The Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act, 1937.The Division Bench after finding that the document available in the paper book does not amount to certificate in terms of Section 32 of The Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act, 1937 and after holding that the detaining authority has not applied his 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 document, we are of the view that the decision relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner is directly applicable to the case on hand. Inasmuch as the detaining authority has referred the destruction mahazar as a certificate in terms of Section 32 of TheTamil Nadu Prohibition Act, 1937, we are satisfied that the detaining authority has not properly applied his mind and on this ground the impugned detention order is liable to be quashed and accordingly, the same is quashed.5.
The Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and the impugned order of detention is set aside. The detenu is directed to be set at liberty forthwith from the custody unless he is required in some other case or cause. Sd/-Asst. Registrar./true copy/Sub Asst. Registrar.raa 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.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.1 cc to Mr.C.C.Chellappan, Advocate, Sr. 26096 H.C.P.No.261 of 2006TEJ (CO)kk 28/6
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.