Dharaniamma Vs. Secretary to Government - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citationsooperkanoon.com/1167306
CourtChennai High Court
Decided OnJul-31-2013
JudgeV.DHANAPALAN
AppellantDharaniamma
RespondentSecretary to Government
Excerpt:
in the high court of judicature at madras dated:31. 07.2013 c o r a m the honourable mr.justice v.dhanapalan and the honourable mr.justice c.t.selvam habeas corpus petition no.662 of 2013 dharaniamma ... petitioner -vs- 1.the secretary to government of tamil nadu, prohibition & excise department, fort st.george, chennai-600 009. 2.district collector and district magistrate, kancheepuram district, kancheepuram. ... respondents writ petition under article 226 of the constitution of india filed praying for issuance of a writ of habeas corpus calling for the records relating to the detention order made in bdfgissv no.58/2013 dated 05.04.2013 passed by the district collector and district magistrate, kancheepuram district, kancheepuram, the second respondent herein and set aside the same and direct the respondents to produce the detenu before this court and set the detenu thiru balaji, s/o. kesavan, aged about 32 years, now confined at central prison, puzhal at liberty. for petitioner : m/s.n.sudharsan for respondents : mr.m.maharaja, additional public prosecutor ***** order (the order of the court was made by v.dhanapalan,j.,) the petitioner is the mother of the detenu, who has been branded as a ".sand offender". as contemplated under the tamil nadu act 14 of 1982 and detained under order of the second respondent passed in bdfgissv no.58 of 2013 dated 05.04.2013.2. the detenu came to adverse notice in the following cases:- sr.no.police station and crime no.sections of law 1. palur police station crime no.358/2012 430, 379 ipc and 3 of tnppdl act 2. chengalpattu taluk police station crime no.1261/2012 430 and 379 ipc3 palur police station crime no.21/2013 430 and 379 ipc. the alleged ground case has been registered against the detenu on 05.03.2013, by the inspector of police, chengalpattu taluk circle, in crime no.33 of 2013 for offences under sections 430, 379, 353, 307 ipc r/w 3(i) of tnppdl act and 21(i) of mines and minerals act. aggrieved by the order of detention, the present writ petition has been filed.3. the learned counsel for the petitioner has raised two important grounds to assail the order of detention. the first ground is that there is a variation between the english and tamil version of the grounds of detention. the next ground raised by the learned counsel is that the detaining authority has arrived at the subjective satisfaction in total non-application of mind that the detenu may be released on bail since he was earlier granted bail and anticipatory bail for the alleged commission of offences under sections 430 and 379 ipc, but whereas in the ground case, apart from the above said offences, he is also implicated for offences under sections 353, 307 ipc r/w 3(i) of tnppdl act and 21(i) of mines and minerals act. therefore, the order under challenge is vitiated.4. we have heard the learned additional public prosecutor on the above submissions and perused the materials on record as well as the impugned order of detention.5. as regards the first ground raised, we find that in paragraph no.5 of the grounds of detention, the detaining authority has observed that there is imminent possibility that the accused may be released on bail. however, the same does not find mention in the vernacular version of the grounds of detention. further, a perusal of the impugned order shows that the detaining authority, by inferring that since the detenu was granted bail and anticipatory bail in respect of two adverse cases in crime nos.1261 of 2012 and 21 of 2013, there is a real possibility of the detenu being released on bail, has passed the impugned detention order. it is seen that the cases, in which the detenu was granted bail and anticipatory bail, were for offences under sections 430 and 379 ipc, whereas, the ground case also includes commission of offence under sections 353, 307 ipc r/w 3(i) of tnppdl act and 21(i) of mines and minerals act. therefore, the subjective satisfaction stands arrived at by the detaining authority in total non-application of mind. thus, for the reasons stated herein-above, the impugned detention order cannot be sustained.6. accordingly, the impugned detention order passed by the second respondent, detaining the detenu, namely, balaji, s/o. kesavan made in bdfgissv no.58/2013 dated 05.04.2013, is quashed and the habeas corpus petition is allowed. the above named detenu is ordered to be set at liberty forthwith, unless his custody is required in connection with any other case.7. the present order is only for the purpose of disposal of this petition and shall not have any bearing upon connected criminal pending cases. [v.d.p.j.,]. [c.t.s.j.,]. 31.07.2013 index: yes / no internet: yes / no gm to 1.the secretary, prohibition & excise department, fort st.george, chennai-600 009. 2.the district collector and district magistrate, kancheepuram district, kancheepuram. 3.the public prosecutor high court, chennai. v. dhanapalan, j.and c.t. selvam, j.gm h.c.p.no.662 of 2013 31.07.2013
Judgment:

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED:

31. 07.2013 C O R A M THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.DHANAPALAN AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.T.SELVAM Habeas Corpus Petition No.662 of 2013 Dharaniamma ... Petitioner -vs- 1.The Secretary to Government of Tamil Nadu, Prohibition & Excise Department, Fort St.George, Chennai-600 009. 2.District Collector and District Magistrate, Kancheepuram District, Kancheepuram. ... Respondents Writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India filed praying for issuance of a writ of Habeas Corpus calling for the records relating to the detention order made in BDFGISSV No.58/2013 dated 05.04.2013 passed by the District Collector and District Magistrate, Kancheepuram District, Kancheepuram, the second respondent herein and set aside the same and direct the respondents to produce the detenu before this Court and set the detenu Thiru Balaji, S/o. Kesavan, aged about 32 years, now confined at Central Prison, Puzhal at liberty. For Petitioner : M/s.N.Sudharsan For Respondents : Mr.M.Maharaja, Additional Public Prosecutor ***** ORDER

(The order of the Court was made by V.DHANAPALAN,J.,) The petitioner is the mother of the detenu, who has been branded as a ".Sand Offender". as contemplated under the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982 and detained under order of the second respondent passed in BDFGISSV No.58 of 2013 dated 05.04.2013.

2. The detenu came to adverse notice in the following cases:- Sr.No.Police Station and Crime No.Sections of Law 1. Palur Police Station Crime No.358/2012 430, 379 IPC and 3 of TNPPDL Act 2. Chengalpattu Taluk Police Station Crime No.1261/2012 430 and 379 IPC3 Palur Police Station Crime No.21/2013 430 and 379 IPC. The alleged ground case has been registered against the detenu on 05.03.2013, by the Inspector of Police, Chengalpattu Taluk Circle, in Crime No.33 of 2013 for offences under Sections 430, 379, 353, 307 IPC r/w 3(i) of TNPPDL Act and 21(i) of Mines and Minerals Act. Aggrieved by the order of detention, the present writ petition has been filed.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has raised two important grounds to assail the order of detention. The first ground is that there is a variation between the English and Tamil version of the grounds of detention. The next ground raised by the learned counsel is that the detaining authority has arrived at the subjective satisfaction in total non-application of mind that the detenu may be released on bail since he was earlier granted bail and anticipatory bail for the alleged commission of offences under Sections 430 and 379 IPC, but whereas in the ground case, apart from the above said offences, he is also implicated for offences under Sections 353, 307 IPC r/w 3(i) of TNPPDL Act and 21(i) of Mines and Minerals Act. Therefore, the order under challenge is vitiated.

4. We have heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor on the above submissions and perused the materials on record as well as the impugned order of detention.

5. As regards the first ground raised, we find that in paragraph No.5 of the grounds of detention, the detaining authority has observed that there is imminent possibility that the accused may be released on bail. However, the same does not find mention in the vernacular version of the grounds of detention. Further, a perusal of the impugned order shows that the detaining authority, by inferring that since the detenu was granted bail and anticipatory bail in respect of two adverse cases in Crime Nos.1261 of 2012 and 21 of 2013, there is a real possibility of the detenu being released on bail, has passed the impugned detention order. It is seen that the cases, in which the detenu was granted bail and anticipatory bail, were for offences under Sections 430 and 379 IPC, whereas, the ground case also includes commission of offence under Sections 353, 307 IPC r/w 3(i) of TNPPDL Act and 21(i) of Mines and Minerals Act. Therefore, the subjective satisfaction stands arrived at by the detaining authority in total non-application of mind. Thus, for the reasons stated herein-above, the impugned detention order cannot be sustained.

6. Accordingly, the impugned detention order passed by the second respondent, detaining the detenu, namely, Balaji, S/o. Kesavan made in BDFGISSV No.58/2013 dated 05.04.2013, is quashed and the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed. The above named detenu is ordered to be set at liberty forthwith, unless his custody is required in connection with any other case.

7. The present order is only for the purpose of disposal of this petition and shall not have any bearing upon connected criminal pending cases. [V.D.P.J.,]. [C.T.S.J.,]. 31.07.2013 Index: Yes / No Internet: Yes / No gm To 1.The Secretary, Prohibition & Excise Department, Fort St.George, Chennai-600 009. 2.The District Collector and District Magistrate, Kancheepuram District, Kancheepuram. 3.The Public Prosecutor High Court, Chennai. V. Dhanapalan, J.

and C.T. Selvam, J.

gm H.C.P.No.662 of 2013 31.07.2013