IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 8.1.2008 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.D.DINAKARAN AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.REGUPATHI H.C.P.No.1669 of 2007 Dhanalakshmi .. Petitioner Vs. 1. The Secretary to Government Prohibition & Excise Department Fort St.George, Chennai-9. 2. The Commissioner of Police Chennai City Chennai – 8. .. Respondents PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue Habeas Corpus as stated therein. For Petitioner : Mr.R.C.Paul Kanagaraj For Respondents : Mr.N.R.Elango Addl. Public Prosecutor O R D E R (Order of the Court was made by P.D.DINAKARAN,J.) The second respondent herein clamped an order of detention as against the detenu – Desappan, son of the petitioner, as the said authority arrived at the subjective satisfaction that the said detenu is a Goonda and he has to be detained under Section 3(1) of the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Forest Officers, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders, Sand Offenders, Slum Grabbers and Video Pirates Act, 1982 (Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982). 2.1. The order of detention dated 16.7.2007 came to be passed by the second respondent on the basis of the ground case in Crime No.77 of 2007 on the file of Fishing Harbour Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 336, 427, 397, 506(2) https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ IPC, complaint of which was given by one Jani. According to the complainant, on 8.7.2007, when he was returning from Kasimedu along with his friend Muniyandi, the detenu wrongfully restrained the complainant and demanded Rs.500/- and as the complainant replied that he had no money, the detenu took out a knife and threatened to stab him. The detenu voluntarily inserted his hand into the short pocket of the complainant and took away Rs.250/- and snatched his wristwatch. When complainant and his associate tried to get back the money, the detenu brandished knife, picked up cool drink bottles and hurled the same against them. The public who were at the spot noticed the atrocious activities and ran for safer places out of fear of danger to their lives and properties. However, the complainant and his associate apprehended the detenu and took him to police station and lodged a complaint as sated above. The detenu was thereafter remanded. 2.2. Apart from the above, the detaining authority also took note of six adverse cases pending against the detenu, viz., Crime No.258 of 2006 on the file of Kasimedu Police Station for the offence punishable under Sections 341 and 506(2) IPC; Crime Nos.43, 44, 45 and 48 of 2007 on the file of Meenjur Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 447 and 379 IPC; and Crime No.71 of 2007 on the file of Fishing Harbour Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 324 and 506(2) IPC. 2.3. The detaining authority, having satisfied that the detenu is indulging in activities which are prejudicial to maintenance of public order, passed the impugned order. 3. Challenging the said detention, the mother of the detenu has preferred this Habeas Corpus Petition seeking a writ of habeas corpus to direct the respondents to produce the detenu before this Court, now confined in Central Prison, Chennai and to call for the records of the respondents relating to the order of detention vide proceedings No.331/2007, dated 16.7.2007, to set aside the same and to set the detenu at liberty. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.N.R.Elango, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondents. 5. The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that even though as per the detention order the detenu was arrested on 8.7.2007, in the representation made on behalf of the detenu on 15.10.2007 it had been specifically alleged that the detenu was arrested on 6.7.2007 itself, ie., two days prior to the date of occurrence of the ground case and kept under illegal custody, but the said point was not at all https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ considered by the Government while disposing the said representation by order dated 12.11.2007, and therefore, the order of detention is vitiated. 6. A perusal of the detention order discloses that the detenu was arrested on 8.7.2007. However, in the representation made on behalf of the detenu dated 15.10.2007 it was specifically alleged that the detenu was arrested on 6.7.2007 and kept under illegal custody for two days. But, the Government, while disposing of the said representation by order dated 12.11.2007 had not considered the said contradiction with regard to the date of arrest raised on behalf of the detenu. In our considered opinion, the non-consideration of the said vital aspect of the case, viz., as to the date of the arrest, when a serious dispute is raised, vitiates the detention order. For the reason aforesaid, the impugned order of detention is vitiated and as such, the same is liable to be set aside and accordingly, the same is set aside. This petition is allowed. The order of detention dated 16.7.2007 is set aside. The detenu is directed to be set at liberty forthwith unless his presence is required connection with in any other crime. No costs. Sd/- Asst. Registrar. /true copy/ Sub Asst. Registrar. sasi To: 1. The Secretary to Government State of Tamilnadu Prohibition and Excise Department Fort St.George, Chennai-9. 2. The Commissioner of Police Chennai City, Chennai-8. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3. The Public Prosecutor High Court, Madras. 4. The Superintendent central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai. 5. The Joint secretary to Government of Tamilnadu Public (Law and order) Fort St. George, Chennai-9. H.C.P.No.1669 of 2007 VRK (CO) kk 1/2 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/