Ramesh vs The State of Tamil Nadu

P. Sathasivam, J.—The petitioner by name Ramesh, challenges the impugned order of detention dated 12.12.2005, detaining him as

Goonda"" u/s 3(1) of the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Forest Offenders, Goondas, Immoral

Traffic Offenders and Slum Grabbers Act, 1982 (in short ""Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982"").

Heard both sides.

At the foremost, learned Counsel for the petitioner raised a contention that without proper order or remand from the competent Magistrate, the

detaining authority passed an impugned order of detention, which vitiates the ultimate order passed by him. While elaborating the above contention,

the learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that in the order dated 25.11.2005, the learned Magistrate No. II, Poonamallee on production of

all the seven accused at 6.00 p.m. after recording that no complaint against police, remanded all of them till 09.12.2005. There is no dispute with

regard to the same. However, according to the learned Counsel for the petitioner, on 09.12.2005, A.6 and A.7 alone were produced before the

Judicial Magistrate No. II, Poonamallee and others were not produced. The learned Magistrate extended the remand till 23.12.2005. By pointing

out the said order, it is contended that the detenu being A.3 and in the absence of material to show that he was produced before the Magistrate, it

is presumed that the remand was not extended beyond 09.12.2005. He further contended that the reliance on the special report which is available

at page 110 of the paper book, in the absence of an order from the Magistrate extending the remand beyond 9.12.2005, it cannot be claimed that

the detaining authority was possessed with all the required materials and arrived proper conclusion before passing of the impugned order of

detention. In support of his contention he relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Kirit Kumar Chaman Lal Kundaliya v. Unions

of India reported in 1981 SCC (Cri.) 471.

On the other hand, learned Additional Public Prosecutor by placing relevant records submitted that there is no dispute with regard to order

passed by the Judicial Magistrate No. II, Poonamallee on 25.11.2005, remanding all the accused till 09.12.2005. He also contended that even

though there is no specific order by the learned Magistrate with regard to detenu, in view of the fact that the remand was also extended in the case

of detenu along with others till 23.12.2005, the details furnished by the Sponsoring authority in the form of special report are sufficient for taking

decision by the detaining authority. According to him, in such circumstances there is no flaw in the impugned order of detention. He also relied on

several earlier orders passed by the Division Bench of this Court and he produced all those decisions in the form of typed set.

Coming to the said contention, we verified page 96 and 98 of the paper book. It is true that the order dated 25.11.2005 of Judicial Magistrate

No. II, Poonamallee shows that all the accused were produced and all of them were remanded till 09.12.2005. In the subsequent order dated

09.12.2005, shows that A.6 and A.7 were produced and all others not produced. Further, learned Judicial Magistrate extended the remand till

23.12.2005. It is not in dispute that the detention order was passed on 12.12.2005. Now, we have to see that on the date of passing of the

detention order the detenu - A3/petitioner was in remand or not. The other document relied on by the detaining authority is a special report dated

09.12.2005, which is available at page 110 of the paper book. A reading of the special report shows that the detenu and others were initially

remanded till 09.12.2005 and thereafter, their remand was extended till 22.12.2005. Though in the absence of specific order in so far as the

detenu extending his remand till 22.12.2005, the detaining authority heavily relied on the special report and after satisfying himself that the detenu

was in remand and considering all other materials, passed the impugned order of detention.

Though learned Counsel for the petitioner relied on the decision of the Supreme Court (1981) SCC (Cri.) 471 cited supra), verification of the

said decision amply shows that it relates to supply of relied on documents, which is evident from para 12 of the judgment. In our case, it is not in

dispute that copy of the remand order and the special report were supplied to the detenu along with the grounds of detention. In such

circumstances, we are of the view that the said decision is not helpful to the case on hand.

On the other hand learned Additional Public Prosecutor has relied on the following unreported decisions:

HCP. No. 716 of 1999 dated 25.10.1999 Ramammal v. The Commissioner of Police, Greater Chennai.;

HCP. No. 503 of 1999 dated 01.11.1999 Seeni @ Srinivasan @ Chappai Mookku Srinivasan @ Prem Ravikumar v. The Secretary to

Government, Prohibition and Excise Department, Chennai 9.;

HCP. No. 718 of 1999 dated 01.11.1999 Murugan v. State of Tamil Nadu;

HCP. No. 483 of 1999 dated 03.01.2000 Govindarajan v. State of Tamil Nadu;

HCP. No. 1776 of 1999 dated 27.04.2000 Vajravel v. State of Tamil Nadu;

HCP. No. 1882 of 1999 dated 26.06.2000 Muniyandi v. State of Tamil Nadu;

HCP. No. 1978 of 1999 dated 26.06.2000 Prakash v. Government of Tamil Nadu; and

HCP. No. 24 of 2000 dated 01.08.2000 P. Saraswathi v. Commissioner of Police, Greater Chennai, Chennai.

The analysis of the above decisions show that even in the absence of copy of the remand extension order, if there is a material to show that the

detenu was in remand / in Central Prison, on the date of passing of the detention order, the detaining authority is free to pass an order depending

on other materials. The decisions also show that the special report of the Sponsoring authority is a relevant document. It further shows that the

Sponsoring authority is competent to swear an affidavit about the last remand extension.

As rightly pointed out from the special report, which was furnished to the detenu it could be seen that the detenu was under remand from

25.11.2005 till 23.12.2005 and the detention order was passed on 12.12.2005. As observed earlier, though in the order dated 09.12.2005 there

is no specific reference to the detenu/A3, in view of the categorical information furnished in the special report dated 09.12.2005, pointing out that

the remand order in the case of detenu / A3 was also extended till 23.12.2005 and in view of series of decisions referred to by the learned

Additional Public Prosecutor, we agree with the stand taken by the learned Additional public Prosecutor. We are also of the view that the

detaining authority was possessed with required details, particularly of the fact that the detenu was in remand on the date of passing of the order,

which is also evident from special report dated 09.12.2005, we are unable to accept the contention raised by the learned Counsel for the

petitioner.

Yet another contention was raised by the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the Advisory Board did not consider the representations

made by the detenu. As against the said contention, learned Additional Public prosecutor has placed the entire records. A perusal of the decision

taken by the Board clearly shows that Advisory Board after perusal of the grounds of detention, report of the detaining authority and the

connected records as well as the representation of the detenu''s wife, unanimously opined that there is sufficient cause for detention of the detenu

by name Ramesh. In such circumstances, we are unable to accept the second contention also.

Except the above said contentions, no other point was urged. Accordingly, we do not find any valid ground for interference; hence, this petition is

dismissed.