Dismissed

M.K.Mohanji v. the Secretary to Government

Madras HC8 Aug 2016HCP/3269/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a habeas corpus petition challenging a preventive detention order under the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982, the Single Judge dismissed the petition, holding that alleged procedural delays and lack of similar case documents did not vitiate the detention order or affect administrative satisfaction.

What did the court decide?

The habeas corpus petition is dismissed and the preventive detention order is upheld.

M.K.Mohanji Vs the Secretary to Government — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 08.08.2016

¶3

CORAM THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.NAGAMUTHU and THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE V.BHARATHIDASAN

¶4

H.C.P.No.3269 of 2015

¶5

M.K.Mohanji .. Petitioner vs. 1. The Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition & Excise Department, Secretariat, Chennai-600 009. 2. The Commissioner of Police, Greater Chennai Police, Office of the Commissioner of Police, Vepery, Chennai- 600 007. .. Respondents

¶6

Prayer : Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a writ of habeas corpus directing the detaining authority to produce the detenu Mr.Lakshmidar, Male, aged 40 years, S/o. Mohanji, residing at No.11-A, Arcot Road, Flat No.4, Door No.4, Manasarvar Apartment, Lakshmi Nagar, Porur, Chennai 600 116 presently detained in the Central Prison in Puzhal, before this Court by calling for the records relating to the preventive detention order dated 30.092015 in No.1064/BCDFGISSSV/2015 which was passed by the 2nd respondent and quash the same.

¶7

For Petitioner : Mr. Anbazhagan for Mr.A.Vivek For Respondent : Mr.E.Raja Additional Public Prosecutor

¶8

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶9

ORDER

¶10

(Order of the Court was made by S.NAGAMUTHU, J.)

¶11

The petitioner is the Father of one Mr.Lakshmidar. The second respondent by his proceedings in Memo No.1064/BCDFGISSSV/2015 dated 30.09.2015 has ordered his detention for one year as per Section 3 of the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982 branding him as 'Immoral Traffic Offender'. Challenging the same, the petitioner has come up with this Habeas Corpus Petition.

¶12

We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State and we have also perused the records carefully.

¶13

Though several grounds have been raised in this Habeas Corpus Petition, the learned counsel for the petitioner would confine his argument only to two grounds. The foremost ground is that though the accused was taken into custody on 16.09.2015 itself, he was produced before the learned Magistrate for remand only on 19.09.2015. Thus, according to the learned counsel, there was illegal custody of the petitioner. In our considered view, it is a question of fact. Whether the accused was really arrested on 16.09.2016 as it is claimed by the detenu is a matter to be gone into by the trial Court and the same cannot be gone into by this Court. At any rate, the alleged illegal detention for sometime would not in any way vitiate the detention order.

¶14

The second ground argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that in respect of the similar case particulars, viz., the F.I.R and other documents are not available in this case. In our considered view, it is not at all necessary and the failure of the Detaining Authority to furnish the copies of the FIR and the statement of witnesses recorded in the similar case would not in any manner affect the detention order. The similar case particulars are taken into account by the Detaining Authority only to have subjective satisfaction that the detenu was likely to come out on bail. In our considered view, in the instant case, from the materials available on record, the Detaining Authority had come to the right conclusion that there was imminent possibility of detenu to come out on bail. In the said conclusion, we do not find any infirmity.

¶15

The learned counsel had not argued any other point.

¶16

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶17

Having considered all the above, we do not find any merit in the petition.

¶18

The Habeas Corpus Petition is accordingly, dismissed.
Sd/-
Assistant Registrar(CS V)
//True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
kua
To
1. The Secretary to Government,
Home, Prohibition & Excise Department,
Secretariat,
Chennai-600 009.
2. The Commissioner of Police,
Greater Chennai Police,
Office of the Commissioner of Police,
Vepery, Chennai- 600 007.
3. The Public Prosecutor,
High Court, Madras.
4. The Superintendent,
Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai.
H.C.P.No.3269 of 2015
sv co
kra 30.08.2016

¶19

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

M.K.Mohanji v. the Secretary to Government

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.K.Mohanji v. the Secretary to Government

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Elavarasan Vs the Inspector of Police

Anbalagan Vs State Rep by

Palanisamy S/O Chellappan Vs the Inspector of Police

Lalitha, D/O Gunasegaran Vs State Rep by

Mohan Kumar Vs the State of Tamil Nadu

Saravanan @ Jagannathan Vs the State of Tamil Nadu