Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details


High Court of Madras

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation


B.Alamelu v. State of Tamil Nadu, rep.by - H.C.P. No.403 of 2005 [2005] RD-TN 528 (1 August 2005)

In the High Court of Judicature at Madras



The Hon'ble Mr. Justice P. SATHASIVAM
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice AR. RAMALINGAM

H.C.P. No.403 of 2005

B.Alamelu .. Petitioner


1. State of Tamil Nadu, rep.by
The Secretary to Government,
Prohibition and Excise Department
Fort St.George,
Chennai 9.

2. The District Magistrate and
District Collector,
Nagapattinam District,
Nagapattinam. .. Respondents

Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
praying for issuance of writ of habeas corpus as stated therein.

For petitioner : Mr. R.Shivakumar

For respondents : Mr. Abudu Kumar Rajarathnam,
1 & 2 Govt., Advocate (Crl.)


(Order of the Court was made by P. SATHASIVAM,J.,) The mother of the detenu, namely, Veeramani, challenges the impugned order of detention dated 31.03.2005, detaining him, as "Bootlegger" under Section 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").

2. Heard both sides.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner by drawing our attention to the complaint made against the detenu and the remand order would submit that the impugned detention order is liable to be quashed on the ground of non-application of mind on the part of the detaining authority. It is seen that ground case has been filed in respect of offences under Sections 4(1)(i), 4(1)(aaa) r/w 4(1-A) of T.N.P. Act, 1937. But in the remand order dated 07.03.2005, which finds place at page nos.40 and 41 of the paper book, the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Mayiladuthurai, has recorded as, "Accused produced. No complaints. No prima facie case is u/s.4(1-A) TNP Act. Hence, remanded u/s.4(1)(aaa) TNP Act only till 21.3.05." A perusal of the above remand order, which is a relied on document show that the accused was remanded only for an offence under Section 4(1)(aaa) of TNP Act. This material aspect was not considered by the detaining authority while passing the impugned detention order. Therefore, there is non-application of mind. It is pointed out that the detaining authority should have called for a report in this respect and without calling for a report, the order of detention has been passed, as if the detenu has committed all the offences as has been registered against him in the First Information Report. This renders the detention illegal. Hence, the impugned detention order is quashed; accordingly, this petition is allowed and the detenu is directed to be set at liberty forthwith from the custody unless he is required in connection with any other case.





1. The Secretary to Government

Prohibition and Excise Department

Fort St. George

Chennai 9.

2. The District Magistrate and

District Collector,

Nagapattinam District,


3. The Superintendent

Central Prison,


(in duplicate for communication to detenu)

4. The Joint Secretary to Government,

Public (Law & Order),

Fort St.George,


5. The Public Prosecutor

High Court, Madras.


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


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 |

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