MOSES Vs. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE CHENNAI CITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) FOR arriving at the subjective satisfaction of the detenu being in remand, the remand orders passed by the court itself are not available on record. However, the Detaining Authority had relied upon a special report of the sponsoring authority for arriving at such subjective satisfaction. The detention order was passed on 16.04.1999. Therefore, it will be possible for the Detaining Authority to act on the special report if the special report contains the necessary details. We have been taken through the special report by the learned counsel for the petitioner. It is stated therein as follows: (The special report is in Tamil and we are translating the relevant portion of that in English hereunder) ?The detenu and the others were arrested on 6.4.1999 and produced before the XIV Metropolitan Magistrate on the same day. The remand court remanded the detenu and the other accused till 20.4.1999. Pursuant to this remand, the detenu and the other accused are lodged in the Central Prison, Madras. On the remand extension request made by the sponsoring authority the court had extended the remand for a further period of 15 days from 20.4.1999 till 4.5.1999.? If really special report was available on the day of the order of detention it would have been impossible for the sponsoring authority to state in his affidavit that on the expiry of the remand on 20.4.1999 it was extended for another 15 days, upto 4.5.1999. The remand extension is shown to have come into existence only and with effect from 20.4.1999. The detention order was passed on 16.4.1999. Therefore, this information regarding the extension of remand from 20.4.1999 to 4.5.1999 would not have been available even to the sponsoring authority on the date when he filed the affidavit. This raises a serious doubt as to whether this special report was before the Detaining Authority on the date when he passed the order of detention. If the special report is eschewed from consideration there is no material available before the Detaining Authority to arrive at the subjective satisfaction on that the detenu was in remand. This according to us vitiates the impugned order or detention. It is therefore set aside and the detenu is directed to be set at liberty forthwith, unless required to be detained in connection with any other case.