Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

JOSEPH @ JOE versus THE SECRETARY TO GOVT.

High Court of Madras

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Joseph @ Joe v. The Secretary to Govt. - H.C.P.NO.938 OF 2003 [2003] RD-TN 1016 (20 November 2003)



IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS



DATED: 20/11/2003

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.K. MISRA

and

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.V. MASILAMANI

H.C.P.NO.938 OF 2003

Joseph @ Joe,

S/o. John .. Petitioner -Vs-

1. The Secretary to Govt.,

of Tamil Nadu,

Prohibition & Excise Department,

Fort St. George, Chennai 9.

2. The Commissioner of Police,

Greater Chennai,

Chennai 600 008. .. Respondents Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of Writ of Habeas Corpus as stated therein. For Petitioner : Mr.R. Balakrishnan

For Respondents : Mr.M.K. Subramanian

Government Advocate

(Criminal Side)

:O R D E R



(The order of the Court was made by P.K.MISRA, J) Heard Mr.R. Balakrishnan for the petitioner and Mr.M.K. Subramanian, Government Advocate for the respondents.

2. The order of preventive detention dated 31.1.2003 passed by the Commissioner of Police, Greater Chennai, under Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 19 82 is being challenged in the present Habeas Corpus Petition.

3. The first contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that in the order of detention it is indicated that the Sub Inspector of Police had arrested the detenu on the date of incident and again he has been arrested by the Inspector of Police. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner this is a material discrepancy and this shows non-application of mind.

4. We have carefully gone through the order of the detention as well as the connected papers. The record shows that on receiving information, the Sub-Inspector of Police along with policemen had gone to the place of occurrence and the detenu had tried to assault the police party. Thereafter the police party apprehended the detenu and subsequently he was produced before the Inspector of Police, when he was shown to be formally arrested. In such view of the matter, we do not find any material discrepancy in this aspect.

5. The second contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is to the effect that the ground case occurred in 2003, whereas the adverse cases relied upon by the detaining authority were of the year 2001 and 2002, and therefore, there is no reasonable nexus between the earlier acts and the subsequent ground case. This submission is again misconceived.

6. On going through the records, we find that the first adverse case had been committed in March,2001 and five other adverse cases were alleged to have been committed in 2002, and the present occurrence, on the basis of which he was placed under preventive detention, took place on 23.1.2003. On going through these dates of incident, it cannot be said that there is no reasonable nexus between the earlier cases and the subsequent ground case.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also submitted that there is discrepancy in the statement given by the affected witness when compared to the statement found in the F.I.R.. The order of detention is based on the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority. Such order is not to be objectively assessed by the High Court while deciding the matter in a petition for Habeas Corpus. Discrepancy, if any, may be considered at the time of trial, but while considering the question of validity of detention, the High Court cannot shift materials to find fault with the order of detention.

8. The next contention of the petitioner is regarding the alleged delay in disposal of the representation. We find that representation dated 26.5.2003 was disposed of on 10.6.2003. The dates furnished would indicate that the authorities have dealt with the matter with promptitude at every stage and there is no unreasonable delay at any stage.

9. For the aforesaid reasons, the writ of Habeas Corpus is dismissed. Index : Yes

Internet : Yes

dpk

To

1. The State of Tamil Nadu,

rep. by its Secretary,

Prohibition & Excise Department,

Fort St. George, Chennai 9.

2. The Commissioner of Police,

Greater Chennai,

Chennai 600 008.

3. The Superintendent,

Central Prison, Chennai.

4. The Joint Secretary to Government,

Public (Law & Order),

Fort St. George,

Chennai 9.

5. The Public Prosecutor,

High Court,

Madras.




Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.