Anjalai Vs. State of Tamil Nadu - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citationsooperkanoon.com/1169153
CourtChennai High Court
Decided OnAug-05-2013
JudgeV.Dhanapalan
AppellantAnjalai
RespondentState of Tamil Nadu
Excerpt:
in the high court of judicature at madras date ::05. 08.2013 coram :: the hon'ble mr. justice v. dhanapalan and the hon'ble mr. justice c.t. selvam h.c.p. no:731. of 2013 mrs. anjalai no:84. raja nagar pudhupattinam kalpakkam via kanchipuram district. ... petitioner -vs- 1. the state of tamil nadu rep. by its secretary to govt. prohibition and excise dept. fort st. george chennai 0 600 009.2. the district collector and district magistrate kanchipuram district. ... respondents .. .. .. writ petition under article 226 of the constitution of india praying for issuance of a writ of habeas corpus praying for a direction to call for the entire records connected with the order of detention passed by the 2nd respondent in b.d.f.g.i.s.s.v. no:63. of 2013 dated 10.04.2013 consequently, directing the respondents to produce the detenue namely, the petitioner's daughter tmt. uma, w/o.kumar aged about 28 years before this hon'ble court and set her at liberty. for petitioner :: m/s. s.p. venkatesh for respondents :: mr. m. majaraja additional public prosecutor .. .. .. order (order of the court was made by v. dhanapalan, j.) petitioner is the mother of the detenue and challenge is made to the order of detention dated 10.04.2013 made in b.d.f.g.i.s.s.v. no:63. 2013, passed by the 2nd respondent under which the detenue has been branded as a bootlegger and detained 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, hereinafter referred to as tamil nadu act 14 of 1982.2. as per the grounds of detention dated 10.04.2013, the detenue came to the adverse notice in the following cases :- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ sl. no.police station & crime no.section of law ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 1 pew mamallapuram @ thirukalukundram  cr. no:10. of 2010 4 (1) (a) tnp act r/w 6 & 11 of rs rules 2000. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 2 pew mamallapuram @ thirukalukundram  cr. no:68. of 2010 4 (1) (a) tnp act r/w 6 & 11 of rs rules 2000. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 3 pew mamallapuram @ thirukalukundram  cr. no:7. of 2012 4 (1) (aaa) 4(1-a) tnp act r/w 6 & 11 of rs rules 2000. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 4 pew mamallapuram @ thirukalukundram  cr. no:216. of 2012 4 (1) (aaa)4(1-a) tnp act r/w 6 & 11 of rs rules 2000. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 5 pew mamallapuram @ thirukalukundram  cr. no:84. of 2013 4 (1) (a) 4 (1-a) tnp act r/w 7 & 11 of rs rules 2000. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 3. in para-3 of the grounds of detention, it is stated among other things that the detenue is also involved in the commission of the offence, which took place on 11.04.2013 morning, which led to the registration of a case by inspector of police, pew, mamallapuram @ thirukalukundram in crime no.85 of 2013 under sections 4(1)(i), 4(1)(aaa), 4(1-a) of the tamil nadu prodhibition act r/w 7 & 11 of rs rules 2000. it is further stated that the detenue was arrested on the same day i.e. on 11.04.2013 at 06.00 hours and was produced before the district munsif cum judicial magistrate, thirukalukundram, on the same day and remanded to judicial custody till 28.03.2013. the detaining authority, on being satisfied upon the materials placed before him that the activities of the detenue are prejudicial to the maintenance of public order, clamped the order of detention. challenging the said order, petitioner is before this court in this habeas corpus petition.4. though the learned counsel for the petitioner raised several grounds to attack the impugned order of detention, he mainly focussed his argument on the ground that the order of detention is passed on 10.04.2013 taking into consideration the ground case which is alleged to have taken place on 11.04.2013 and submits that the factum of non application of mind on the part of the detaining authority is explicitly evident and, therefore, the impugned order of detention is liable to be quashed on this sole ground.5. we have heard the learned additional public prosecutor appearing for the respondents on the above point and perused the material documents produced before us.6. a perusal of the impugned order of detention would reveal that the detention order was clamped on the detenue on 10.04.2013 branding her as a ".bootlegger".. such an order contains the details of all the adverse cases in which the petitioner is involved and the ground case registered on 11.04.2013. in paragraph 3 of the detention order it is stated that, ". on 11.04.2013 morning while conducting prohibition raid by the inspector of police, pew, mamallapuram @ tirukalukundram along with the police party at the layout of indira nagar situated at vayalur village in sadras ps limit found a female person who was sitting near thorny bushes by possessing a plastic gunny bag and giving something from the bag to the general public and receiving money from them. ....... ......... .......... ....... tmt. uma was arrested by morning 6.00 am for possessing and selling of noxious diluted rectified spirit. .... .. . ... ". from the aforesaid narration of events, it is seen that the ground case came to be registered in cr. no:85. of 2013 on 11.04.2013 at 7.20 a.m. in pew, mamallapuram @ thirukalukundram for offences u/s. 4(1)(i), 4(1)(aaa), 4(1-a) of t.n.p. act r/w 7 & 11 of rs rules 2000 against the detenue and later, since the detaining authority was of the considered opinion that the activities of the detenue are prejudicial to the maintenance of public order, the detention order came to be passed. in the normal circumstances, only after the registration of the ground case, the detaining authority can arrive at a subjective satisfaction to clamp the detention order. whereas, in the case on hand, the detaining authority has come to a conclusion on the earlier day itself i.e. 10.04.2013 with a notion that a ground case would be registered on 11.04.2013. this glaringly shows the non application of mind on the part of the detaining authority in passing the detention order. as if this is not enough, the detaining authority has proceeded to go on and stated in paragraph 3 of the detention order that the detenue, who was arrested on 11.04.2013 in cr. no:85. of 2013 in pew, mamallapuram @ thirukalukundram, was produced before the district munsif cum judicial magistrate, thirukalukundram, on the same day and ordered to be remanded in ".judicial custody upto 28.03.2013".. further, at paragraph 5, the detaining authority has stated that, ".5. i am aware that tmt. uma was arrested in connection with pew, mammallapuram @ thirukalukundram in cr. no:85. / 2013 on 14.03.2013 and produced before the district munsif cum judicial magistrate, thirukalukundram, on the same day and ordered to be remanded in ".judicial custody upto 28.03.2013 ..... ..... ". the materials placed before us shows that the occurrence in the ground case took place on 11.04.2013, the detenue was arrested at 6.00 a.m. on that day, the case was registered in cr. no:85. of 2013 by pew, mammallapuram @ thirukalukundram, at 7.20 a.m. that being so, we don't understand as to how the detaining authority has stated that the detenue, was arrested in connection with pew, mammallapuram @ thirukalukundram, in cr. no:85. 2013 on 14.03.2013, produced before the concerned magistrate and remanded to judicial custody upto 28.03.2013. for a crime registered on 11.04.2013, there cannot be an arrest on 14.03.2013.7. thus, all the aforesaid facts and circumstances show that the detaining authority has not at all applied his mind while clamping the detention order on the detenue and, hence, it cannot be sustained. accordingly, the impugned detention order passed by the 2nd respondent, detaining the detenue, namely tmt.t.uma, w/o.kumar, made in b.d.f.g.i.s.s.v. no:63. 2013 dated 10.04.2013, is quashed and the habeas corpus petition is allowed. the above named detenue is ordered to be set at liberty forthwith, unless her custody is required in connection with any other case. gp to 1. the state of tamil nadu rep. by its secretary to govt. prohibition and excise dept. fort st. george chennai 0 600 009.2. the district collector and district magistrate kanchipuram district.3. the public prosecutor high court, madras
Judgment:

In the High Court of Judicature at Madras Date ::

05. 08.2013 Coram :: The Hon'ble Mr. Justice V. Dhanapalan and The Hon'ble Mr. Justice C.T. Selvam H.C.P. No:

731. of 2013 Mrs. Anjalai No:

84. Raja Nagar Pudhupattinam Kalpakkam via Kanchipuram District. ... Petitioner -vs- 1. The State of Tamil Nadu rep. by its Secretary to Govt. Prohibition and Excise Dept. Fort St. George Chennai 0 600 009.

2. The District Collector and District Magistrate Kanchipuram District. ... Respondents .. .. .. Writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a writ of habeas corpus praying for a direction to call for the entire records connected with the order of detention passed by the 2nd respondent in B.D.F.G.I.S.S.V. No:

63. of 2013 dated 10.04.2013 consequently, directing the respondents to produce the detenue namely, the petitioner's daughter Tmt. Uma, w/o.Kumar aged about 28 years before this Hon'ble Court and set her at liberty. For petitioner :: M/s. S.P. Venkatesh For respondents :: Mr. M. Majaraja Additional Public Prosecutor .. .. .. ORDER

(Order of the Court was made by V. Dhanapalan, J.) Petitioner is the mother of the detenue and challenge is made to the order of detention dated 10.04.2013 made in B.D.F.G.I.S.S.V. No:

63. 2013, passed by the 2nd respondent under which the detenue has been branded as a Bootlegger and detained 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, hereinafter referred to as Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982.

2. As per the grounds of detention dated 10.04.2013, the detenue came to the adverse notice in the following cases :- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Sl. No.Police Station & Crime No.Section of Law ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 1 PEW Mamallapuram @ Thirukalukundram  Cr. No:

10. of 2010 4 (1) (a) TNP Act r/w 6 & 11 of RS Rules 2000. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 2 PEW Mamallapuram @ Thirukalukundram  Cr. No:

68. of 2010 4 (1) (a) TNP Act r/w 6 & 11 of RS Rules 2000. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 3 PEW Mamallapuram @ Thirukalukundram  Cr. No:

7. of 2012 4 (1) (aaa) 4(1-A) TNP Act r/w 6 & 11 of RS Rules 2000. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 4 PEW Mamallapuram @ Thirukalukundram  Cr. No:

216. of 2012 4 (1) (aaa)4(1-A) TNP Act r/w 6 & 11 of RS Rules 2000. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 5 PEW Mamallapuram @ Thirukalukundram  Cr. No:

84. of 2013 4 (1) (a) 4 (1-A) TNP Act r/w 7 & 11 of RS Rules 2000. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 3. In para-3 of the grounds of detention, it is stated among other things that the detenue is also involved in the commission of the offence, which took place on 11.04.2013 morning, which led to the registration of a case by Inspector of Police, PEW, Mamallapuram @ Thirukalukundram in Crime No.85 of 2013 under Sections 4(1)(i), 4(1)(aaa), 4(1-A) of the Tamil Nadu Prodhibition Act r/w 7 & 11 of RS Rules 2000. It is further stated that the detenue was arrested on the same day i.e. on 11.04.2013 at 06.00 hours and was produced before the District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Thirukalukundram, on the same day and remanded to judicial custody till 28.03.2013. The detaining authority, on being satisfied upon the materials placed before him that the activities of the detenue are prejudicial to the maintenance of public order, clamped the order of detention. Challenging the said order, petitioner is before this Court in this habeas corpus petition.

4. Though the learned counsel for the petitioner raised several grounds to attack the impugned order of detention, he mainly focussed his argument on the ground that the order of detention is passed on 10.04.2013 taking into consideration the ground case which is alleged to have taken place on 11.04.2013 and submits that the factum of non application of mind on the part of the detaining authority is explicitly evident and, therefore, the impugned order of detention is liable to be quashed on this sole ground.

5. We have heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents on the above point and perused the material documents produced before us.

6. A perusal of the impugned order of detention would reveal that the detention order was clamped on the detenue on 10.04.2013 branding her as a ".Bootlegger".. Such an order contains the details of all the adverse cases in which the petitioner is involved and the ground case registered on 11.04.2013. In paragraph 3 of the detention order it is stated that, ". On 11.04.2013 morning while conducting prohibition raid by the Inspector of Police, PEW, Mamallapuram @ Tirukalukundram along with the Police party at the layout of Indira Nagar situated at Vayalur Village in Sadras PS limit found a female person who was sitting near thorny bushes by possessing a plastic gunny bag and giving something from the bag to the general public and receiving money from them. ....... ......... .......... ....... Tmt. Uma was arrested by morning 6.00 AM for possessing and selling of noxious diluted rectified spirit. .... .. . ... ". From the aforesaid narration of events, it is seen that the ground case came to be registered in Cr. No:

85. of 2013 on 11.04.2013 at 7.20 a.m. in PEW, Mamallapuram @ Thirukalukundram for offences u/s. 4(1)(i), 4(1)(aaa), 4(1-A) of T.N.P. Act r/w 7 & 11 of RS Rules 2000 against the detenue and later, since the detaining authority was of the considered opinion that the activities of the detenue are prejudicial to the maintenance of public order, the detention order came to be passed. In the normal circumstances, only after the registration of the ground case, the detaining authority can arrive at a subjective satisfaction to clamp the detention order. Whereas, in the case on hand, the detaining authority has come to a conclusion on the earlier day itself i.e. 10.04.2013 with a notion that a ground case would be registered on 11.04.2013. This glaringly shows the non application of mind on the part of the detaining authority in passing the detention order. As if this is not enough, the detaining authority has proceeded to go on and stated in paragraph 3 of the detention order that the detenue, who was arrested on 11.04.2013 in Cr. No:

85. of 2013 in PEW, Mamallapuram @ Thirukalukundram, was produced before the District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Thirukalukundram, on the same day and ordered to be remanded in ".Judicial Custody upto 28.03.2013".. Further, at paragraph 5, the detaining authority has stated that, ".

5. I am aware that Tmt. Uma was arrested in connection with PEW, Mammallapuram @ Thirukalukundram in Cr. No:

85. / 2013 on 14.03.2013 and produced before the District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Thirukalukundram, on the same day and ordered to be remanded in ".Judicial Custody upto 28.03.2013 ..... ..... ". The materials placed before us shows that the occurrence in the ground case took place on 11.04.2013, the detenue was arrested at 6.00 a.m. on that day, the case was registered in Cr. No:

85. of 2013 by PEW, Mammallapuram @ Thirukalukundram, at 7.20 a.m. That being so, we don't understand as to how the detaining authority has stated that the detenue, was arrested in connection with PEW, Mammallapuram @ Thirukalukundram, in Cr. No:

85. 2013 on 14.03.2013, produced before the concerned Magistrate and remanded to Judicial Custody upto 28.03.2013. For a crime registered on 11.04.2013, there cannot be an arrest on 14.03.2013.

7. Thus, all the aforesaid facts and circumstances show that the detaining authority has not at all applied his mind while clamping the detention order on the detenue and, hence, it cannot be sustained. Accordingly, the impugned detention order passed by the 2nd respondent, detaining the detenue, namely Tmt.T.Uma, W/o.Kumar, made in B.D.F.G.I.S.S.V. No:

63. 2013 dated 10.04.2013, is quashed and the habeas corpus petition is allowed. The above named detenue is ordered to be set at liberty forthwith, unless her custody is required in connection with any other case. gp To 1. The State of Tamil Nadu rep. by its Secretary to Govt. Prohibition and Excise Dept. Fort St. George Chennai 0 600 009.

2. The District Collector and District Magistrate Kanchipuram District.

3. The Public Prosecutor High Court, Madras