RAMANI Vs. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate (Crl.side) for respondents.

(2.) The petitioner has challenged the order of preventive detention dated 26.2.2003. The detention is on the ground that the detenue is a Bootlegger. Even though several contentions have been raised in the Habeas Corpus Petition, it is not necessary to deal with all the contentions as in our opinion, the contention relating to non-application of mind by the detaining authority at the time of passing the order of detention is acceptable.

(3.) The detention is based on the incident dated 9.2.2003. In the order of detention, there is reference to seizure mahazar containing the crime number. It is the assertion of the petitioner that at the time of effecting the seizure, crime number could not have been furnished and it appears that it could not have been prepared at the spot and there has been subsequent insertion in the police station. In the counter, it is admitted that the crime number was not given at the spot but subsequently in the police station the crime number has been added. Whatsoever may be the truth of the explanation, it was the duty of the detaining authority to have dealt with this aspect. However, without making any efforts to find out about such aspect, the order has been passed.