IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 12-06-2009 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.J.MUKHOPADHAYA AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO H.C.P.No.519 of 2009 Murugesan ..Petitioner vs 1. The Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Secretariat, Chennai-9. 2. The Commissioner of Police, Chennai Police. ` ..Respondents Habeas corpus petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issue a writ of habeas corpus to call for the records in connection with the order of detention passed by the second respondent dated 27.03.2009 in Memo No.31/BDFGISSV/2009 against petitioner's son Raj @ Raji @ Amalraj @ Amulraj, son of Murugesan, aged about 34 years, who is confined at Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai and set aside the same and direct the respondents to produce the detenu before this Court and set him at Liberty. For Petitioner : Mr.V.Parthiban For Respondents : Mr.V.R.Balasubramanian Additional Public Prosecutor ORDER RAJA ELANGO,J. The petitioner challenges an order of the second respondent passed in Memo No.31/BDFGISSV/2009 on 27.3.2009 detaining his son Raj @ Raji @ Amalraj @ Amulraj as a Goonda under Section 2(f) of the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982. 2.We have heard the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and also the learned Additional Public Prosecutor and perused the records produced by the State. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3.Learned Counsel for the petitioner first argued that the detention order was passed on 27.3.2009 after a lapse of more than 1 ½ months from the time of remand. A perusal of the records would show that the sponsoring authority has stated that the delay in passing the order is due to the fact that the extension of remand was made till 20.2.2009 and it was further extended till 2.4.2009 and due to advocates' boycott, the sponsoring authority was not able to obtain the remand order till 26.3.2009. So the detention order was passed on 27.3.2009. In view of the above, we are of the opinion that the delay cannot be taken into account. 4.The second point raised by the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the bail application filed on 26.3.2009 in Crl.M.P.No.2085/2009 was not brought to the notice of the detaining authority. A careful perusal of the records and consideration of the submissions made by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State would go to show that the date of filing of the bail application was 26.3.2009. In the normal course, notice will be served on the sponsoring authority only on the next day. In this case, the detention order was passed on 27.3.2009. Hence the knowledge of the filing of the bail application does not arise on that day. 5.The third point raised by the learned Counsel is that in the detention order it is stated that the detenu has not moved bail application before the XVII M.M.; but, the detenu moved bail applications in Crl.M.P.Nos.636, 592 and 637 of 2009 which shows the non-application of mind by the detaining authority. Here also, the records reveal and the total reading of the sentence in paragraph 4 of the detention order clearly shows that the word "not" is only a typographical error, and the Tamil version of the detention order also clearly shows that the detenu moved bail application, and the same was dismissed. So the petitioner cannot take advantage of the same. 6.The other contention raised by the learned Counsel is that the detenu was remanded by the XVII M.M. in his residence; but, in the detention order it is stated that the detenu was remanded by the XVII M.M.'s Court. That the functioning of the Magistrate while discharging his duties as a Judicial Officer either in the Court or in his residence will have the same effect. The Magistrates are also recording dying declaration in the hospital and also conducting identification parade in the prison doing the same in the capacity as a Magistrate. In this case the Magistrate remanded the detenu in the capacity as XVII M.M. Merely because in the detention order it is stated that the detenu was remanded by XVII M.M.'s Court, it cannot be stated that it has caused prejudice to the detenu. 7.For the above reasons, the petitioner failed in his attempt to convince the Court on the aforesaid grounds. There is no need to https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ interfere with the order of detention passed by the detaining authority. Hence this petition is dismissed. sd/- Asst.Registrar /true copy/ Sub Asst.Registrar rrg To 1. The Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Secretariat, Chennai-9. 2. The Commissioner of Police, Chennai Police. 3. The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras. + 1 c.c. to Mr. V. Parthiban, Advocate. S.R.No.22633. Order in HCP No.519 of 2009 RS (CO) GSK 19.06.2009. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/