Ayya Suresh @Suresh v. The State of Tamil Nadu

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED:17.06.2008CORAM:THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.CHOCKALINGAMANDTHE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.PALANIVELUHCP.NO.63 OF 2008Ayya Suresh @Suresh ...PetitionerVs.1.The State of Tamil Nadu, rep. by the Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Secretariat, Chennai 600 009.2. The District Collector and District Magistrate, Nagapattinam District, Nagapattinam.3. The Superintendent, Central Prison, Trichi. ..RespondentsPetition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution ofIndia for the issuance of a writ of Habeas Corpus calling for therecords in connection with order C.O.C.No.70/2007 dated 18.12.2007and quash the same and direct the respondents to produce thepetitioner Ayya Suresh @ Suresh S/o Ayyapillai now detained inCentral prison, Tiruchirappali under the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982before this Court and set him at liberty. For petitioner: Mr.P.PugalenthiFor Respondents : Mr.M.Babu Muthu Meeran Additional Public Prosecutor https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ O R D E R(Order of the Court was made by M.CHOCKALINGAM,J) Challenge is made to the order of the second respondentmade in C.O.C.No.70/2007 dated 18.12.2007 whereby the detenue who isthe petitioner herein was termed as 'Goonda' and detained under theprovisions of Act 14 of 1982.2. Affidavit filed in support of the petition is perused. The order under challenge is also perused. Heard the learned counselfor the petitioner as well as the learned counsel appearing for therespondents-State.3.The order under challenge came to be passed by thedetaining authority on the strength of the materials placed by thesponsoring authority pertaining to Crime No.1566 of 2006 underSection 120(b), 109 and ,395 r/w 397 IPC of Mayiladuthurai PoliceStation, the next adverse case registered under Section 379 IPC inCrime No.474 of 2006 at Kuttalam Police Station and apart from thesetwo adverse cases, one ground case registered in Crime No.662 of 2007under Section 399 IPC read with 25(1)(b) of Arms Act 1959 and othermaterials also, the detaining authority has recorded that it hasarrived at a subjective satisfaction on the materials available torecord a finding that the activities of the detenu were prejudicialto the maintenance of the public order and peace and hence he was tobe termed as 'Goonda' and in order to prevent him from indulging insuch activities, a necessity arose to pass an order of detentionunder Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982, which is the subject matter ofchallenge before this Court.4. Advancing his arguments on behalf of the petitioner, learned counsel for the petitioner raised two points; firstly, theground case was registered by the S.I. of Police of the concernedStation on his own complaint, while he has also taken up theinvestigation and made an observation of the scene of occurrence. Hehas also caused arrest of the accused/detenu, prepared and seizedM.Os., that he has also filed two remand reports one on 24.11.2007and 7.12.2007 before the Judicial Magistrate concerned. It has beenrepeatedly held by this Court that the complainant should not be anInvestigator and hence the whole proceedings was illegal. Addedfurther the counsel that as per the seizure mahazar, a pipe wasrecovered from the accused/detenu, at the time when he was preparingfor dacoity. But the measurement of the pipe was not mentioned in theseizure mahazar. While the defects were available when the materialsplaced before the detaining authority, he should not have passed theorder of detentio. But he has not done so, which would indicate thenon-application of mind on the part of the detaining authority. Hence, the order of detention has got to be set aside. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

#5. Heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor on theabove contentions. 6. The Court paid its anxious consideration to thesubmissions made. After doing so, this Court is of the consideredopinion that this petition does not carry merit whatsoever. Concededly on the strength of the recommendations made by theSponsoring Authority, the detaining Authority has passed an orderunder challenge observing that the activities of thedetenu/petitioner were prejudicial to the maintenance of the publicorder and peace and hence it has arrived at a subjective satisfactionin order to terming him as a Goonda and further necessity arose todetain him as Goonda under the provisions of Act 14 of 1982. Both thegrounds raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner and recordedabove can be raised before the Court of Criminal law in therespective criminal proceedings and that the said Court has to gointo the question whether those contentions were acceptable or not. What are all required in a case like this, where the order ofdetention has already been passed is whether the authority hasapplied its mind on the materials available in order to arrive at asubjective satisfaction, which in the opinion of this Court has notbeen done. Under such circumstances, the grounds raised by thelearned counsel for the petitioner do not carry any merit .Accordingly, both the grounds are rejected and hence the HabeasCorpus Petition is dismissed.sd/-Asst. Registrar/true copy/Sub Asst. RegistrarVJYTo1.The Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Secretariat, Chennai 600 009.2. The District Collector and District Magistrate, Nagapattinam District, Nagapattinam.3. The Superintendent, Central Prison, Trichi. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

#4. The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.5. The Joint Secretary, Public (Law & Order) Fort St. George, Chennai. 600 009.+1 cc To Mr.P.Pugalenthi, Advocate, SR.30967HCP.NO.63 OF 2008mdr [co]gkg/27.6