V.Ramani v. The State Of Tamil Nadu Rep By
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 05.02.2016
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE S.TAMILVANAN and THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.HARIPARANTHAMAN H.C.P.No.3004/2015 V.Ramani .. Petitioner Vs.
1.The State of Tamil nadu, rep. by its Secretary to Government, Prohibition and Excise Department, Fort St. George, Chennai-600 009.
2.The District Collector & Distrait Magistrate, Office of the District Collector & District Magistrate Cuddalore District, Cuddalore.
.. Respondents Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus calling for the records relating to the detention order in C3/D.O./44/2015 dated 05.11.2015 on the file of the second respondent and quash the same and directing the repsondents to produce the Corpus of the detenu K.Velu, son Kaliyaperumal, aged about 44 years, residing at 357, Madha Koil Street, Keezhkavarapattu Village, Panruti Taluk, Cuddalore District (now detained in the Central Prision at Cuddalore) before this Court and set him at liberty. For Petitioner :
Mr.S.Kumaradevan For respondents :
Mr.A.N.Thambidurai, APP
O R D E R
[Order of the Court was made by S.TAMILVANAN, J.] Challenge is made to the order of detention passed by the second respondent vide C3/D.O./44/2015 dated 05.11.2015, whereby the husband of the petitioner, by name, K.Velu, son of Kaliyaperumal, aged 44 years, was ordered to be detained under the provisions of Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities
of Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Forest Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders, Sand Offenders, Slum-grabbers and Video Pirates Act, 1982 (Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982) branding him as a "BOOTLEGGER".
2.Though many grounds have been raised in the petition, Mr.Mr.S.Kumaradevan, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, confines his argument only in respect of nonapplication of mind on the part of the detaining authority in passing the order of detention.
3.Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that there is a delay of 5 days in depositing the samples before the Court as the sponsoring authority has collected the samples on 22.10.2015 [Thursday], but the same was sent to Court only on 27.10.2015 [Tuesday] and subsequently, the samples were sent for chemical analysis and hence, the samples would have lost its real character. Hence, it is submitted that the Detention Order which has been passed on the basis of the Chemical Analysis report is indicative of total non-application of mind on the part of the detaining authority and the same is vitiated and is unsustainable in law.
4.Per contra, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that the order of detention has been passed on cogent and sufficient materials and the same cannot be interfered with at the instance of the petitioner. Therefore, he submits that the Habeas Corpus Petition does not merit any consideration and the same is liable to be dismissed.
5.We have heard the learned counsel for both sides with regard to the facts and citation.
6.The ground raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the delay in depositing the samples before the Court concerned. As evidenced from the documents, the samples were collected by the Sponsoring Authority on 22.10.2015; but the same were sent to Court only on 27.10.2015 and there is a delay of 5 days in sending the samples. Even after giving concession of 3 days intermittent holidays, still there is a delay of 3 days. This inordinate delay of 3 days in depositing the samples before the Court and thereafter, sending the same for chemical analysis will make the sample to lose its real character. Hence, the Detaining Authority has passed the Detention order in total non-application of mind which would vitiate the detention order.
7.A Division Bench of this Court in KAMALA Vs. THE STATE OF TAMIL NADU REP. BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, HOME, PROHIBITION & EXCISE DEPT., CHENNAI AND ANOTHER reported in 2013 [3] MLJ [CRL.] 671, has held thus:-
".............
4.From a perusal of the booklet produced by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, it is seen that though the samples were drawn from the seized material on 11.02.2013 by the investigating officer, they were sent for Chemical examination only on 14.02.2013. Thus, there is an unexplained delay in sending the samples for chemical analysis and no satisfactory explanation is also forthcoming from the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the said delay.
5.The Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court, in a similar case, viz., SUNDARARAJAN Vs. THE STATE OF TAMIL NADU REP. BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, AND ANOTHER [HCP.No.320/2009] decided on 23.03.2009, has been pleased to lay down as under:- "4.Apart from the other grounds raised in the Habeas Corpus Petition, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has stressed the ground of delay in sending the sample, which was recovered from the detenue, to the chemical analyst for analysis. According to the learned counsel, though the sample of arrack was collected from the detenue on 15.09.2008, it was sent to the Assistant Director and Government Assistant Chemical Examiner, Regional Forensic Sciences Laboratory, for analysis only on 17.09.2008 and hence, there is an abnormal delay, which vitiates the order of detention passed against the detenue.
5.As seen from the records, it is clear that the sample of arrack, which was seized on 15.09.2008 from the detenue, was sent for chemical analysis only on 17.09.2008 and hence, there is an abnormal delay in sending the sample for chemical analysis, due to which, the sample will lose its character and there is no satisfactory explanation from the Public Prosecutor for the said delay."
8.In the light of the above facts and law and also taking into consideration the unexplained delay in sending the samples for chemical analysis, we have no hesitation in quashing the order of detention on the above mentioned grounds. 9.Accordingly, the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and the impugned detention order passed by the second respondent is set aside. The detenu is directed to be released forthwith unless his presence is required in connection with any other case. Sd/- Assistant Registrar(J) //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar kal To 1.The State of Tamil nadu, rep. by its Secretary to Government, Prohibition and Excise Department, Fort St. George, Chennai-600 009.
2.The District Collector & Distrit Magistrate, Office of the District Collector & District Magistrate Cuddalore District, Cuddalore.
3.The Superintendent of Central Prison, Cuddalore.
4. The Joint Secretary to Government Public Law & order Secretariat Chennai-9.
5.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.
+ 1 cc to M/s. Kumaradevan, Advocate Sr.7800 H.C.P.No.3004/2015 MG(CO) Eu 4.03.16