IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS Dated:- 16.02.2008 Coram:- The Hon'ble Mr. Justice P.D.DINAKARAN and The Hon'ble Mr. Justice R.REGUPATHI Habeas Corpus Petition No.707 of 2007 Kannada Prasad @ Prasad ... Petitioner vs. 1. The Secretary to Government, Prohibition & Excise Department, Secretariat, Chennai 600 009. 2. The Commissioner of Police, Chennai City, Egmore, Chennai 600 008. ... Respondents Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of a writ of habeas corpus to call for the records relating to Detention Order No.135 of 2007, dated 03.04.2007, passed by the Commissioner of Police, Chennai, the 2nd respondent herein, set aside the same, direct the respondents to produce the body of detenu Kannada Prasad @ Prasad, S/o. Krishnamoorthy, aged about 45 years, the detenu, now confined in Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai, before Court and set him at liberty forthwith. For Petitioner : Mr.B.Kumar, Senior Counsel for Mr.S.Ramesh Babu For Respondents : Mr.N.R.Elango, Addl. Public Prosecutor. J U D G M E N T R.Regupathi, J. The petitioner herein challenges the impugned order of detention, dated 03.04.2007, in and by which, he has been detained as ‘Immoral Traffic Offender’ as contemplated under the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Forest Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders, Sand Offenders, Slum Grabbers and Video Pirates Act, 1982 (Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982). https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2. The ground case occurrence, which led to passing of the order of detention against the detenu, in brief, is narrated here-under:- One Simran @ Sajitha, a native of Mumbai, due to family circumstances, left Mumbai and came to Chennai on 12.02.2007 in search of livelihood. Under the guise of fetching employment, she was taken to the detenu by one Seema. Sensing that she would be subjected to illegal activities/prostitution, she tried to escape from the detenu, who was sitting in a car along with his associates, whereupon, she was forcibly taken to a place at Neelankarai and kept in a room without food and water along with other girls. Ultimately, by pretending that she is willing to indulge in prostitution, she somehow managed to get off. On 15.02.2007, in the morning, she was standing at K.K. Nagar Bus Stand, at which time, a police constable questioned her and as she does not know Tamil, she was taken to the nearby police station for enquiry. On 16.02.2007, she was enquired by the Central Crime Branch police and, after obtaining her statement, the Inspector of Police registered a case in Central Crime Branch X Crime No.84/2007, for offences punishable under Sections 366, 366(A) and 120(b) IPC and 3(1), 4(1), 5(1) and 6(2)(A) of I.T.P. Act, and further investigation was set in motion. On 17.02.2007, when the police party led by the Inspector of Police, CCB, Team VII, were proceeding towards Radhakrishnan Salai, the detenu and his associate, on seeing them, uttered filthy language and started hurling bottles against them and thereby created havoc at the spot. The police party arrested the detenu and subsequent thereto, his confession statement was recorded and ultimately, the provisions of law were altered as Sections 366, 366(A) and 120(b) IPC and 3(1), 4 (1), 5(1) and 6(2) (A) of ITP Act and 294(b), 353 and 506 (2) IPC. The investigation disclosed that the detenu and his associates, under the guise of getting employment and by giving false promise to fetch chance to act in films, deceived young girls and forced them into prostitution and enticed the youth to indulge in immoral activities, thereby acted in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. The Detaining Authority, taking note of six adverse cases to the credit of the detenu, clamped the order of detention, labelling him as 'Immoral Traffic Offender'. 3. At the foremost, learned Senior Counsel by pointing out the following aspects, viz., (i) the detenu was actually arrested on 15.02.2007, however, in the grounds of detention, it is stated that he was taken into custody on 17.02.2007 and remanded to judicial custody on 18.02.2007; (ii) at the time of remand before the learned Magistrate, a Memo was filed on behalf of the detenu, wherein, it is specifically stated that the detenu was illegally detained from 15.02.2007 onwards and such Memo has been received by the learned Magistrate and there is an endorsement https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ in the said Memo itself to that effect; and (iii) subsequent thereto, a pre-detention representation, dated 23.03.2007, has been sent by the detenu and it was received on the same day; would contend that though the illegal detention of the detenu from 15.02.2007 to 17.02.2007 has been stated rather in clear terms in the representation, the Detaining Authority has failed to take note of such vital aspect while passing the impugned order of detention and that, at any rate, it is a case where the detenu was kept in illegal detention, which resulted in great prejudice to the detenu; therefore, the ultimate order of detention is liable to be quashed. 3-A. Per contra, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, referring to the grounds of detention, submits that amongst various relevant documents, the Detaining Authority has taken into consideration the representation of the detenu also and the same has been mentioned as 5th item in the listed documents at page No.14 of the grounds of detention, of course, the date has been wrongly typed as 25.3.2007 instead of 23.3.2007. He specifically relied on the following statement of the Detaining Authority at page No.15 of the grounds of detention:- " In the representation Tmt. Latha has stated that her husband Thiru Prasath @ Kannada Prasath was taken into custody by the Central Crime Branch police on 15-2-2007 at 9.30 p.m. from Hotel Savera and kept in illegal detention for 2 days and during the said illegal detention period police demanded to pay money for releasing him and when she informed that he had no money false cases were foisted against Thiru Prasath @ Kannada Prasath to detain him under Goondas Act. Further she stated that her husband Thiru Prasath @ Kannada Prasath was put to harassment during the illegal detention and later on 18-2-2007 he was remanded on a false case. Further she stated that she apprehend false cases would be registered against her husband to detain under Goondas Act and requested to take action. I went through the records. Perusal of the records shows that he recently come to adverse notice in 6 cases and in the ground case he was found acting in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. Further perusal of the records shows that on 17-2-2007 at 10.00 hrs Thiru Murugan, Inspector of Police, Central Crime Branch, Team-VII who was assisting the investigation on information with the police party proceeded at https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Radhakrishnan Salai and found Thiru Prasath @ Kannada Prasath at Radhakrishnan Salai near Savera Hotel and was arrested and not earlier as alleged. Further, when he was produced before the learned Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai on 17-2-2007 he did not complained to the Learned Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore about the said illegal detention or registration of false case. ...... Further there are enough material evidences available to show that the said Thiru Prasath @ Kannada Prasath was arrested only on 17-2- 2007 at 10.00 hrs and not earlier. Hence I am satisfied that the contentions found in the telegrams and the representation are false and is given with ulterior motive to use as a defence document." 4. On consideration of the rival contentions and upon perusing the representation, dated 23.03.2007, which finds place at page No.451 of the Booklet supplied to the detenu, coupled with the grounds of detention, we are of the considered view that the allegation made by the detenu that he was illegally kept in custody for two days, ie., on 15.02.2007 and 16.02.2007, has been taken note of and in fact properly answered by the Detaining Authority in the grounds of detention. Though the Memo filed in the court by the detenu was not made available before the Detaining Authority along with the representation dated 23.03.2007, it is seen that the contents of the Memo had been repeated in the representation. In the above circumstances, the subjective satisfaction arrived at by the said authority cannot be questioned before this Court. Therefore, the ground raised by the learned Senior Counsel does not merit acceptance. 5. Learned Senior Counsel states that six cases have been listed as adverse cases and those cases have been relied on by the Detaining Authority, but, there are materials to show that the petitioner is involved in some other cases on earlier occasions and when the detenu was in judicial custody, a requisition was given by the Sponsoring Authority before learned VI Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai, for issuance of P.T. (Prisoner Transit) Warrant. He further states that in para No.4 of the grounds of detention, only listed cases have been taken into consideration and the Detaining authority made an observation, 'there is a real possibility that he (the detenu) may come out bail'. By pointing out the above aspects, learned Senior Counsel argues that the Detaining Authority has failed to take note of all other pending cases, in respect of which, the Sponsoring Authority filed a requisition for issuance of a P.T. Warrant. According to him, the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ petitioner/detenu was presumed to be in judicial custody in respect of the cases mentioned in the requisition as well. 5-A. Answering the aforesaid contention, learned Additional Public Prosecutor submits that those earlier cases referred to in the requisition made by the Sponsoring Authority had not been relied on as adverse cases in the grounds of detention; however, the fact remains, the detenu was in judicial custody in the ground case on the date of detention. He clarifies by stating that the presence/appearance of the detenu before court is absolutely necessary in respect of earlier pending cases on the adjourned dates of those cases and only for production of the detenu on those dates, P.T. Warrant was sought for and merely because of such requisition, it cannot be construed that the detenu was in judicial custody in those cases also. 6. We have perused the requisition available at page No.17 of the Booklet which reads as follows:- " ghu;itapy; fz;l tHf;Ffspy; vjpup gpurhj; @ fd;dl gpurhj; S/o. rPdpthrK:u;j;jp vd;gtu; jiykiwt [ Fw;wthspahf ,Ue;J tUfpwhu;/ jw;nghJ nkw;go gpurhj; (v) fd;dlgpurhj; vd;gtu; brd;id kj;jpa Fw;wg;gpupt [ Fw;w vz; 84-2007 tHf;fpy; brd;id kj;jpa Fw;wg;gpupt [ nghyPrhuhy; ifJ bra;ag;gl;L brd;id g[Hy; kj;jpa rpiwr;rhiyapy; ePjpkd;w ifjpahf cs;shu;/ ,tu; ghu;itapy; fz;l tHf;Ffspy; jiykiwt[ Fw;wthspahf , Ug;gjhy; ,tUf;F nkw;go tHf;Ffspy; ePjpkd;wj;jpy; M$u; bra;a P.T. thuz;l; tH';Fk;go jhH;ika[ld; nfl;Lf;bfhs;fpnwd;/ " It is true that, in the grounds of detention, the Detaining Authority did not take note of the cases as mentioned in the requisition. The fact remains, the detenu was not in judicial custody in respect of the listed cases in the requisition, however, he was shown as absconding accused. Therefore, the possibility of the detenu coming out on bail by filing bail application for those cases need not be taken into consideration at all by the Detaining Authority. That being so, the contention of the learned Senior Counsel is liable to be rejected. 7. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner refers to another requisition, available at page No.139 of the Booklet, made before learned XVII Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidpaet, Chennai, wherein, after stating that formal arrest has been made, issuance of P.T. Warrant with regard to cases in Crime Nos.33/06, 94/06 and 5/07 was https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ sought for by the Sponsoring Authority so as to produce the detenu before the learned Magistrate for the purpose of remand on regular basis. Relying on the said requisition, learned Senior Counsel contends that the detenu has been formally arrested in the aforesaid three cases and the presumption thereon would be that the detenu is in judicial custody after 'formal arrest' and the Detaining Authority, while arriving at the subjective satisfaction, should have also mentioned those cases and made an observation as to the possibility of his coming out on bail, and thereafter concluded one way or other for detaining the detenu. 7-A. Per contra, learned Additional Public Prosecutor submits that the requisition is only for issuance of P.T. Warrant and mentioning of 'formal arrest' would only mean, even before such requisition was made before the Magistrate, intimation was made by the Sponsoring Authority to the detenu and such proceedings of the Sponsoring Authority need not be taken into consideration inasmuch as the detenu is already in custody with the police and therefore, the Detaining Authority must take into account the six cases as listed in the grounds of detention for arriving at the subjective satisfaction, which exercise has been done properly by the said Authority. 8. When a person is in judicial custody in a particular case and such person is required for production before the Magistrate in some other pending case, formal arrest is made and the same would be construed only as an intimation to the prisoner. The purpose of requisition is for production of the prisoner in the Court on P.T. Warrant. Even if such P.T. Warrant is issued against an accused, who has already been released on bail on sureties having been furnished, the bail already granted to him cannot be mechanically cancelled and he cannot be committed to judicial custody without following the procedure contemplated in such cases. Simply because a requisition has been filed, it cannot be presumed that the detenu is in judicial custody with reference to those cases also. Concededly, the detenu was not in judicial custody in those cases. Therefore, we are of the opinion that the Detaining Authority need not take into consideration those cases, wherein, he was not in judicial custody and therefore, the contention made by the learned senior counsel fails. 9. Net result, Habeas Corpus Petition is dismissed as devoid of merits. sd/- Asst.Registrar /true copy/ Sub Asst.Registrar https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ JI. To 1. The Secretary to Government, Prohibition & Excise Department, Secretariat, Chennai 600 009. 2. The Commissioner of Police, Chennai City, Egmore, Chennai 600 008. 3. The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Chennai. +1cc to Mr s.Ramesh Babu, Advocate, SR.No.8262 HCP No.707/2007. Rs [co] gkg/22.2 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/