Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

M.RANI versus STATE OF TAMIL NADU

High Court of Madras

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


M.Rani v. State of Tamil Nadu - H.C.P.(MD) No.2 of 2007 [2007] RD-TN 652 (22 February 2007)

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

DATED : 22/02/2007

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.CHOCKALINGAM

AND

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.RAJASURIA

H.C.P.(MD) No.2 of 2007

M.Rani .. Petitioner vs

1.State of Tamil Nadu,

rep. by

The Secretary to Government

Department of Excise and Prohibition

Secretariat, Fort St. George

Chennai 600 009.

2.The District Collector and

District Magistrate

Tiruchirappalli District

Tiruchirappalli

3.The Inspector of Police

Manapparai Police Station

Manapparai Sub-Division

Tiruchirappalli District .. Respondents Habeas Corpus petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India calling for the records of the second respondent passed in Cr.M.P.No.57 of 2006 dated 6.8.2006 and set aside the order of detention dated 6.8.2006 and direct the respondents to produce the detenu Muthuvel, Son of Karuppiah before this Court now confined in the Central Prison, Tiruchirappalli, as a Boot-legger and set him at liberty.

For Petitioner ... Mr.T.M.Madasamy For Respondents ... Mr.S.P.Samuel Raj,

Additional Public Prosecutor :ORDER



Challenging an order of detention passed by the first respondent dated 6.8.2006, whereby the petitioner's husband Muthuvel, was termed as Boot-legger, the wife has brought forth this petition.

2.The order under challenge is perused. It is seen from the impugned order that there were six ground cases registered against the detenu all relating to prohibition offences. On the strength of the recommendation made by the sponsoring authority, the order came to be passed. According to the detaining authority, the activities of the detenu were prejudicial to the maintenance of public order and public health. Now, the said order is sought to be assailed by the petitioner stating that there are discrepancies found.

3.The learned Counsel for the petitioner would submit that as could be seen, in three of the cases, the detenu was fined, and he also paid the fine of Rs.500/- in each case; but, the order would read that there was a fine of Rs.750/- in one case, and thus, there was a discrepancy found. The learned Counsel would further add that in the instant case, one of the witnesses by name Muthusami, has given a statement under Sec.161 of Cr.P.C. to the police that on 10.7.2006, he had the arrack supplied by the detenu; that the detenu was not present in the arrack shop on the very day; that at that time, he was actually present before the Criminal Court, when he was fined; that he paid the fine amount also; and that under the circumstances, the detenu could not have been in his arrack shop as stated in the statement which was relied on by the authority. The learned Counsel would further add that the detaining authority has pointed out that he was aware that the detenu was in remand in connection with Manapparai Police Station Crime No.310/2006 and has not moved for bail; but, factually, he moved bail application on 3.8.2006, and it was dismissed; that the said fact was not brought to the notice of the authority; that under the circumstances, the authority could not apply his mind, and all would go to show that there was non-application of mind.

4.The Court heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor on the above contentions.

5.After careful consideration of the rival submissions made, this Court is of the considered opinion that no case is made out for allowing this petition. It is an admitted position that six cases under the Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act were registered against him, out of which three cases already ended in admission. It is true that in all the three cases, he has been fined and has paid Rs.500/- in each case. According to the petitioner, the detenu has made the payment of fine of Rs.500/- only in each case and not Rs.750/- as recorded by the detaining authority in respect of one case. Once it is a case of admission, in the opinion of this Court, the amount of Rs.250/- would, in no way, cause prejudice to the detenu or could, in no way, be called as non- application of mind.

6.So far as the other contention was concerned, bail application was not pending at that time; but, it was filed on 3.8.2006 and also dismissed. But, the detaining authority has pointed out that no bail application was pending. It cannot be stated that there was non-application of mind for the simple reason that all the papers were placed by the sponsoring authority before the detaining authority even much earlier. Under such circumstances, it cannot be a ground at all.

7.As regards the other ground that the detenu could not have been in his arrack shop in the evening of 10.7.2006, since he was fined that day by the criminal Court, and he was available in the Court, the same cannot be accepted at all, since no time is mentioned in the statement recorded from Muthusami by the Investigator on 11.7.2006; but, it refers to the evening hours of 10.7.2006. In such circumstances, it cannot be stated that a person fined by the criminal Court, will be in the Court till the evening. That apart, it is not a case where he was directed to be there till the rising of Court. It is only a case of admission, and if immediately fine was paid, he would have come out, and hence, that cannot be a ground to set aside the order. Under the circumstances, this Court is unable to notice any reason to disturb the order of detention passed by the authority.

8.Hence, this habeas corpus petition fails, and the same is dismissed. To:

1.The Secretary to Government

Department of Excise and Prohibition

Secretariat, Fort St. George, Chennai 600 009. 2.The District Collector and

District Magistrate

Tiruchirappalli District, Tiruchirappalli

3.The Inspector of Police

Manapparai Police Station

Manapparai Sub-Division

Tiruchirappalli District

4.The Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court 


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.