Madras High Court
Raghavendran Alias Ingarsal vs District Magistrate And District ... on 27 July, 2006
Author: M.Chockalingam
Bench: M.Chockalingam
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 27/07/2006 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.CHOCKALINGAM AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.E.N.PATRUDU HCP (MD) No.96 of 2006 Raghavendran alias Ingarsal ... Petitioner vs 1.District Magistrate and District Collector Tiruchirappalli District Tiruchirappalli 2.The Secretary to Government Prohibition and Excise Department Tamil Nadu Government Secretariat, Chennai 9. 3.The Inspector of Police Thuvarankurichi Police Station Trichy District. ... Respondents Habeas corpus petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a writ of habeas corpus directing the respondents herein to produce the petitioner/detenu Raghavendran @ Ingarsal, S/o Chockalingam, who has been termed as Goonda and who is now confined in Central Prison, Trichy, call for the records in Cr.M.P.No.57/2005 dated 20.9.2005 passed by the first respondent herein and set aside the same? and set the detenu at liberty. !For Petitioner ... Mr.T.A.Omprakash ^For Respondents ... Mr.N.Senthurpandian, A.P.P. :ORDER
(Order of this Court was made by M.CHOCKALINGAM, J.) An order of detention passed by the first respondent/detaining authority on 20.9.2005 in Cr.M.P.No.57/2005 terming the petitioner as Goonda, is sought to be set aside by way of this petition for a writ of habeas corpus.
2.The Court looked into the affidavit in support of the petition along with the grounds on which the order is sought to be set aside. The order under challenge is also perused.
3.The sponsoring authority made a recommendation stating that a case was registered by Thuvarankurichi PS in Crime No.254/2005 under Sections 341, 397 and 506(ii) of IPC, for an occurrence that took place on 27.8.2005; that following the same, four grave cases were also noticed, first one registered by Thiruppur Rural PS in Crime No.504/2002 under Sections 457 and 380 of IPC, second one by Puthanatham PS in Crime No.81/2004 under Sections 341, 323, 324, 452, 427 and 307 of IPC, third one by Karur Town PS in Crime No.320/2005 under Sec.379 of IPC and the fourth one by Thuvarankurichi PS in Crime No.253/2005 under Sec.392 of IPC; that under the circumstances, the activities of the petitioner/detenu were prejudicial to the maintenance of public order, and hence, he has got to be detained under Act 14 of 1982 terming him as Goonda. The detaining authority after perusing all the materials available, satisfied and passed an order which is the subject matter of challenge before this Court.
4.The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner inter alia in his sincere attempt of assailing the order made the following submissions:
(i) A perusal of the order of detention would show that one of the adverse cases is shown as registered by Puthanatham PS in Crime No.81/2004 under Sections 341, 323, 324, 452, 427 and 307 of IPC. When the matter was placed by the sponsoring authority and considered by the detaining authority, Sections 323 and 452 have been included in the said crime number; but, originally, it was not registered so. Thus, it would be quite clear that when the matter was placed before the detaining authority, some more particulars what were not available, were also placed.
(ii) The case in Crime No.81/2004 registered by Puthanatham PS, was actually investigated by the Inspector of Police, attached to Thuvarankurichi PS. What is the reason for such investigation is also not made known.
5.The learned Counsel would further add that all these cases are theft cases pending before the respective Court; that apart from that, a perusal of the case records would clearly show that the petitioner was apprehended by the public; but, when the matter was placed before the detaining authority, it was stated that it was the police officials who apprehended him and took to the Police Station; that all these matters were not considered by the authority; that had it been placed by the sponsoring authority and considered by the detaining authority, such an order would not have been passed, and under the circumstances, it has got to be quashed.
6.The Court heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor on the above contentions.
7.After careful scrutiny of the materials available, this Court has to necessarily agree with the learned Counsel for the petitioner. All these cases are only theft cases, except one case for attempt to murder. They are all only individual acts. This Court had also made a distinction between the acts which are against the public order and those which are against the law and order. In the instant case, there was nothing to indicate that the acts were prejudicial to the maintenance of the public order; but, it is a matter of law and order. He has also been prosecuted, and the cases are also pending. That apart, a perusal of the materials would clearly indicate that originally, a case was registered by Puthanatham PS in Crime No.81/2004 under Sections 341, 324, 427 and 307 of I.P.C., wherein Sections 323 and 452 of I.P.C. were not actually shown. But, when the sponsoring authority placed the matter before the detaining authority, those provisions of law have been included. No explanation is forthcoming in that regard. Thus, it would be quite evident that when the matter was placed before the detaining authority, all these facts have been added. Apart from that, there was an investigation conducted by the Inspector of Police, Thuvarankurichi PS, in respect of the case which was registered by Puthanatham PS. No explanation was also tendered or mentioned in the recommendation made by the sponsoring authority. This Court is of the opinion that these circumstances would be suffice to set aside the order.
8.In the result, this habeas corpus petition is allowed, setting aside the order of the first respondent. The detenu is directed to be set at liberty forthwith unless his presence is required in any other case.
To:
1.District Magistrate and District Collector Tiruchirappalli District Tiruchirappalli
2.The Secretary to Government Prohibition and Excise Department Tamil Nadu Government Secretariat, Chennai 9.
3.The Inspector of Police Thuvarankurichi Police Station Trichy District.
4.The Superintendent Central Prison, Trichy.
5.The Public Prosecutor Madurai Bench of Madras High Court