Muniyandi v. State

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDated:- 16.10.2006Coram:-The Hon’ble Mr. Justice P.SATHASIVAMandThe Hon’ble Mr. Justice S.TAMILVANANHabeas Corpus Petition No.783 of 2006Muniyandi ... PetitionerVs.1.State rep. by the Secretary to Government, Prohibition and Excise Department, Fort St.George, Chennai-9. 2. The District Magistrate and District Collector, Virudhu Nagar District @Virudhu Nagar. ... RespondentsPetition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for theissuance of a Writ of Habeas Corpus to call for the records of the secondrespondent, pertaining to the order made in Cr.M.P.No.14 of 2006 dated24.07.2006 in detaining the detenu under Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982, as aDrug Offender and quash the same and direct the respondents to produce thedetenue, namely, M.Kasi Ammal, W/o Malaisamy, aged 45 years, who isdetained at the Special Prison for Women, Tiruchy, before this Court andset her at liberty. For Petitioner: Mr.Veera KathiravanFor Respondents: Mr.M.Babu Muthu Meeran Addl. Public ProsecutorO R D E R (Order of the Court was made by P.SATHASIVAM,J.)The petitioner, who is the cousin of the detenue, by name Kasi Ammal, who is detained as a ''Drug Offender" as contemplated under the Tamil Nadu https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, ForestOffenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders, Slum Grabbers and VideoPirates Act, 1982 (Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982), by the impugned detentionorder dated 24.07.2006, challenges the same in this Petition.2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learnedAdditional Public Prosecutor for the respondents. 3. At the foremost, the learned counsel for the petitioner submittedthat in view of the fact that the sponsoring authority has referred to thefact that the detenue is going to be detained under Act 14 of 1982 in theletter addressed to the Assistant Director, Forensic Laboratory, Maduraiit reflects the pre-determination on the part of the detaining authorityin detaining the detenue at any cost. 4. We verified the communication dated 14.07.2006. The said lettersent by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Srivalliputhur to theAssistant Director, Forensic Laboratory, Madurai wherein he requested theOfficer to send an inspection report in respect of the seized propertiesalready sent for examination, since the same is required for takingappropriate action under the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982. First of all, itis not an information to any one including the detenue or to a competentCourt. The said letter according to the Deputy Superintendent of Policewas written in order to get a report urgently and it also shows that inorder to get priority, a reference was made to the effect that action isbeing taken under Act 14 of 1982. It is not a view of the detainingauthority as claimed by the learned counsel for the petitioner. Thereference made in the communication addressed to the Laboratory cannotconstrued that the detaining authority has predetermined to detain thedetenue at any cost. Accordingly, we reject the said contention.5. Learned counsel for the petitioner next submitted that even thoughthe ground occurrence is stated to have taken place on 13.07.2006, thedetaining authority in paragraph No. 3(i) of the grounds of detention hasmentioned the said date as 13.06.2005, which shows the non-application ofmind on the part of the detaining authority and seeks intervention by thisCourt. 6. We are unable to accept the said contention. Except in paragraphNo.3(i) in all other places including the Tamil version of the grounds ofdetention, the ground occurrence has been correctly stated as 13.07.2006.In view of the fact that except in one place, in all other placesincluding the Tamil version, the ground occurrence has been correctlystated, viz., 13.07.2006, we are satisfied that the detenue is no wayprejudiced for the said mistake. Accordingly, we reject the saidcontention.7. Finally, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that thearrest and the passing of the detention order were not intimated to thefamily members of the detenue. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

#8. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor by placing the recordssubmitted that the arrest was intimated to her son by name Selvam and thedetention order was intimated to her husband viz., Malaisamy. Thenecessary endorsements are available in the original records. Accordingly, we reject the said contention. 9. In the light of what is stated above, we do not find any validground for interference. Accordingly, this Habeas Corpus Petition failsand the same is dismissed.Sd/-Asst. Registrar./true copy/Sub Asst. Registrar.gmsTo 1.Secretary to Government, Prohibition and Excise Department, Fort St.George, Chennai-9. 2. The District Magistrate and District Collector, Virudhu Nagar District @Virudhu Nagar. 3. The Superintendent, Special Prison for Women, Tiruchy. (In duplicate for communication to detenu)4. The Joint Secretary to Government, Public (Law and Order)Fort St. George, Chennai-9.5.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.+ 1 CC To Mr. Veera Kathiravan, Advocate SR NO. 48709 HCP. No.783 of 2006ng(co)gp/30.10.