Hari Philips Michael @ Imthiaz vs The State of Tamil Nadu

P. Sathasivam, J.—The petitioner by name Hari Philips Michael @ Imthiaz, who was detained as a ""Goonda"" as contemplated u/s 3(1) of

the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Forest Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders, Slum

Grabbers and Video Pirates Act, 1982 (Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982), by the impugned detention order dated 17.09.2005, challenges the same in

this Petition.

Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondents.

At the foremost, learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the description of various Sections in respect of the adverse cases in Serial

No. 3 of the detention order differs from that of the F.I.R. According to him, in the First Information Report, the offences said to have been

committed are under Sections 457 and 511 IPC. On the other hand, in the grounds of detention, in Serial No. 3, it is stated that the offences

punishable are under Sections 457 and 380 IPC. According to the learned Counsel, it shows non-application of mind on the part of the detaining

authority. We are unable to accept the said contention. Apart from the ground case which took place on 29.08.2005, the detenu was involved in

14 adverse cases. It is not in dispute that except Serial No. 3, in all other cases, the detaining authority has correctly mentioned the date of

occurrence and offences committed by the detenu. In such circumstances, merely because there is a wrong description in mentioning the offences

in respect of Serial No. 3, the detention order cannot be faulted with. Accordingly, we reject the said contention.

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner next contended that the detenu was arrested on 29.08.2005 and he was produced before the XIV

Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai, on 30.08.2005 at 5.20 p.m. The learned Magistrate, after recording the fact that there were no

complaints against police and the grounds of arrest were intimated to the detenu, remanded him till 13.09.2005. There is no dispute with regard to

the date and period of remand as ordered by the learned XIV Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai. However, the learned Counsel for the

petitioner, by pointing out the remand extension order, which is available at page 179 of the paper book, contended that the date mentioned

therein, viz. 13.08.2005 is factually incorrect and this was not noted by the detaining authority while passing the order of detention. According to

the counsel, the remand extension order was passed by the learned XIV Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai, only on 13.09.2005 and not

on 13.08.2005, as stated in the order. He has also contended that even though the sponsoring authority has submitted the Special Report, he has

referred to the correct date of remand extension order, viz. 13.09.2005, there is no clarification or explanation in respect of the date mentioned in

the remand extension order dated 13.08.2005. According to the learned Counsel, in the absence of any such clarification by the sponsoring

authority in respect of the date mentioned in the remand extension order dated 13.08.2005, the detaining authority is not justified in passing the

impugned detention order. According to him, the said aspect shows non-application of mind on the part of the detaining authority.

We verified the remand extension order passed by the learned XIV Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai dated 30.08.2005 and the

order dated 13.09.2005 (it is mentioned as 13.08.2005). It is to be noted that in the certified copy of the order passed by the learned XIV

Metropolitan Magistrate, it is stated that the remand extension order was passed on 13.08.2005, but in fact, the said order was passed only on

13.09.2005. This information was correctly stated by the sponsoring authority in his special report, which is available at page 182 of the paper

book. As rightly pointed out by the Additional Public Prosecutor, the mistake is in the certified copy of the order passed by the learned XIV

Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai and the same cannot be corrected either by the sponsoring authority or by the detaining authority. The

relevant fact that has to be considered before passing the detention order is whether the detenu was in remand, particularly on the date of passing

of the detention order or whether the detenu was in custody and his remand was extended by an order of appropriate authority. It is not in dispute

that on 30.08.2005, the detenu was remanded till 13.09.2005 and thereafter, his remand was extended till 27.09.2005. In such circumstances and

in view of the fact that on the date of passing of the detention order, the detenu was in remand and merely because there is an error in referring to

the date viz., 13.08.2005 instead of 13.09.2005, the detention order cannot be faulted with. As stated earlier, the correct information was

furnished by the sponsoring authority in his special report. At the most, the reference made in the order dated 13.09.2005 which is available at

page 179 of the paper book supplied to the detenu is to be treated as a typographical error. We accept the explanation offered by the learned

Additional Public Prosecutor and reject the arguments of the learned Counsel for the petitioner. Except the above said contentions, no other

argument was urged before us.

In the light of what is stated, we do not find any valid ground for interference. Consequently, the Habeas Corpus Petition fails and the same is

dismissed.