Hariharan @ Hari vs The State of Tamil Nadu

P. Sathasivam, J.—The petitioner by name Hariharan @ Hari, who was detained as a ''''Goonda"" as contemplated under 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 17.10.2005, challenges the same in this Petition.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Government Advocate for the respondents.

At the foremost, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that there is delay in disposal of the representation of the detenu, which vitiates the

ultimate order of detention. With reference to the above claim, the particulars furnished by the learned Government Advocate show that if we

exclude the intervening holidays, we find that there is no undue delay at any stage. Accordingly, we reject the said contention.

The learned counsel for the petitioner by drawing our attention to paragraph 4 of the grounds of detention contended that inasmuch as the

accused/detenu filed a bail application even on 10.10.2005 and notice was taken by the Public Prosecutor on the same date, the claim of the

detaining authority that the detenu has not moved any bail application is a misstatement of fact and the order is liable to be interfered.

With regard to the said contention, we verified the xerox copy of the petition and the order passed in Crl. M.P. No. 8930 of 2005 on

18.10.2005. Though the learned counsel for the petitioner states that the said bail application was filed on 10.10.2005, there is no evidence to

show that the same was served to the Public Prosecutor and who in turn communicated the same to the sponsoring authority. Even otherwise, as

rightly pointed out by the learned Government Advocate, as per the judgment of the Supreme Court reported in 1992 SCC (Cri) 1 (Abdul Sathar

Ibrahim Manik v. Union of India, if the detenu has moved for bail then the application and the order thereon refusing bail even if not placed before

the detaining authority it does not amount to suppression of relevant material. The question of non-application of mind and satisfaction being

impaired does not arise as long as the detaining authority was aware of the fact that the detenu was in actual custody.

Even if we accept the claim of the petitioner, the fact remains that on the date of passing of the detention order, the detaining authority was very

well aware that the detenu was in custody. In such circumstances, we are unable to accept the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner.

Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the remand order of the learned VIII Metropolitan Magistrate(I/C), George Town,

Chennai, has not been properly translated while supplying the same to the detenu. The learned counsel has pointed out that in the English version of

the remand order dated 03.10.2005, the learned VIII Metropolitan Magistrate(I/C), George Town, Chennai, after recording the fact that ""...no

complaints of ill-treatment by police. The accusation stated...."" and remanded to judicial custody till 17.10.2005. According to the learned counsel,

this has not been correctly translated in the Tamil version of the remand order, which is available at page 161 of the paper book supplied to the

detenu and the same is as follows.

(Vernacular portion deleted)

The translated copy makes it clear that no complaint was made against the police and this has been recorded by the learned VIII Metropolitan

Magistrate(I/C), George Town, Chennai. In other words, we are satisfied that there is no variation in English and Tamil version of the remand

order as claimed by the petitioner. Accordingly we reject the said contention.

The learned counsel for the petitioner by pointing out that the vehicle involved/seized is ""Honda Activa"". The detaining authority has described

the same as ""Hero Honda"" motor cycle. According to the learned counsel, the detaining authority has not specifically noted the correct make of the

motor cycle. We are unable to accept the said contention. In all the places there is a specific reference to the motor cycle bearing registration

No.TN04 P 1074. It is not in dispute that the vehicle concerned is motor cycle and regarding the description and the registration number has been

correctly stated in all the places. Accordingly, we reject the said contention also.

In such circumstances, we do not find any valid ground for interference. Accordingly, the Habeas Corpus Petition fails and the same is

dismissed.