K. Raja @ Sagaya Arokia Darmaraj vs State

P. Sathasivam, J.—The petitioner, who is the detenu and 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 20.9.2005, challenges the same in this Petition.

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

At the foremost, learned Counsel for the petitioner by taking us through the special report dated 16.9.2005 of the sponsoring authority, which is

available at page No. 129 of the paper book contended that in the absence of specific order of the learned Magistrate, extending remand for a

period of 15 days on 18.8.2005 and 1.9.2005, i) first of all the information furnished by the sponsoring authority is factually incorrect and ii) the

detaining authority without clarification or additional material acted upon and passed the detention order, which cannot stand.

In the light of the above contention, we verified the special report. In the special report, after referring the arrest of the detenu on 4.8.2005, the

sponsoring authority has stated that by order dated 4.8.2005, learned 17th Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai extended the remand till

18.8.2005 and again extended the remand by order dated 1.9.2005 and finally by order dated 15.9.2005 extended the remand for a further

period of 15 days. i.e. from 15.9.2005 to 29.9.2005. Though in the order dated 15.9.2005, the detenu was produced before the learned

Magistrate and his remand was extended till 29.9.2005, there is no specific order on 18.8.2005 and 1.9.2005, as claimed by the sponsoring

authority in his special report dated 16.9.2005. We verified the order passed on 18.9.2005 and 1.9.2005. Learned Magistrate after recording the

fact that the accused was not present, he merely adjourned the case and not extended the remand as stated in the special report. In the absence of

such orders and of the fact that based on the special report, the detaining authority has passed the detention order, we are of the view that the

detaining authority ought to have asked those particulars or clarified the position from the sponsoring authority. Admittedly such recourse was not

adopted by the detaining authority before passing the order of detention. We are satisfied that in the absence of those particulars, the detention

passed based on the incorrect information by the sponsoring authority is liable to be quashed. 5. Accordingly, the Habeas Corpus Petition is

allowed and the impugned order of detention is quashed. The detenu is directed to be set at liberty forthwith from the custody unless he is required

in some other case or cause.