P MAHESWARI Vs. SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT PROHIBITION AND EXCISE DEPARTMENT GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU FORT ST GEORGE MADRAS 9

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner'sson is detained as a "goonda" under Act 14 of 1982. THE first point urged by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is that the last out of the five adverse cases is stated to have been registered on 28.2.1999 and the ground case is stated to have been registered on 14.3.1999. THE crime number for the earlier case is 362 of 1999 and the crime number for the later case is 458 of 1999. It is shown that 96 crime numbers are found to have been registered for the period from the date of registration of the last adverse case and the ground case. But the serial number of the first information report for the last adverse case is 683561 whereas the serial number of the first information report for the ground case is shown to be 683575. That/means, hardly 14 first information report formats have been used. This cannot be accepted as correct, in view of 96 crime numbers having come to be registered between the last adverse case and the ground case. On the basis of large number of crime numbers having come to be registered and correspondingly equivalent first information report forms not having been utilised, it is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the detaining authority should have called for an explanation from the sponsoring authority on this vital aspect. If such explanation had been called for and received, then the said explanation may have a telling effect on the mind of the detaining authority to pass the order of detention or not to pass the same. Inasmuch as this has not been done, the order of detention bristles with non application of mind, which would by itself vitiate the order of detention challenged in this writ petition. For this purpose, he relied upon the judgment dated 15.2.1996 of the Division Bench of this Court in H.C.P. No. 1441 and 1442 of 1995. In that judgment, the learned Judges have held as follows: "Worthy it is to mention here that FIR number in the anterior second adverse case is 085376 and the number of the FIR in the ground case incident is 085383 and in between the FIR numbers of the anterior second adverse case and the subsequent ground incident case, there is a difference of only seven numbers. In such an eventuality, we are unable to understand as to how this sort of a feat could have happened, when especially 65 crime numbers had been registered on the file of the same police station. Thi s is getting elucidated further by stating that if 65 cases had been registered on the file of the same police station in between the second adverse case and the ground case incident, there could have been corresponding increase in the FIR numbers relatable to the ground case incident. Apparently that is not the case here. This aspect of the matter ought to have attracted the attention of the Commissioner of Police, Madras City - detaining authority. Nothing is traceable by any tangible material, in the shape of records, arising out of the fact that the detaining authority in fact applied its mind, in the sense of calling for particulars from the concerned police station. If he had called for such particulars, there could have; been plausibility of explaining the same to the said detaining authority. THE fact that he had not called for clarification is proof-positive of the non- application of mind on the part of the said detaining authority, which alone is sufficient to vitiate the impugned orders of detention passed against the retrospective detenus in these actions." No-doubt, the judgment applies in all fours to the case on hand. THE learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the State brought another judgment to our notice dated 19.3.1996 made in H.C.P. No. 1551 of 1995. THEre also a similar question had arisen for consideration. THE learned Judges in that case held as follows: "THE second submission was that the serial numbers in first information reports in relation to the last adverse case and the ground case do not tally. According to the learned Advocate, the last adverse case was registered in Cr. No. 498 of 1995 and the FIR bears the number 405653, whereas in relation to the ground case, which was registered as Crime No, 502 of 1995, the FIR bears the numbers 405656 and hence a doubt as to whether a case was in fact registered arises. As long as the ground case is numbered later than the last adverse case and the F.I.R. bears the later number, we cannot go into the question, whether there was any mistake in using the F.I.R. book on the basis of mere arithmetics. This contention has no force." THErefore on the same issue there are two judgments expressing two different views. Both the above referred to judgments, are rendered by two different Division Benches of equal strength. THErefore going by the law of precedents, we are inclined to follow the later'sjudgment among the two, that is the judgment in H.C.P. No. 1551 of 1995 as it appears to our mind that the learned Judges had correctly decided the issue raised therein. Accordingly, we find that this point raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner does not deserve acceptance and it is rejected.

(2.) THE next ground urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the ground case is shown have taken place in Ashok Pillar Road, Ashok Nagar, whereas in the grounds of detention - both in English and in Tamil, it is stated that the ground case has taken place in Miller'sRoad. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, Ashok Pillar Road is Ashok Nagar, in a totally different sub division Madras and Miller'sRoad is somewhere near Purasawakkam, which is again in another sub division. THErefore this aspect had escaped the attention of the detaining authority. We perused the grounds of detention, both in English and in Tamil. We find that though originally it has been mentioned in the ground case that the place of occurrence is Miller'sroad the same has been corrected as Pillar'sroad. In this circumstance, we find that there is no change in the place of occurrence. Both the grounds fail and the habeas corpus petition is dismissed.