REGENT COMPUTRONICS PVT. LTD.

Sagunthala Appellant

V/S

State Of Tamil Nadu; District Collector And District Magistrate; Superintendent Of Central Prison Respondents

Referred Judgements :-

ASLAM AHMED ZAHIRE AHMED SHAIK VS. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS [REFERRED]
SUMAIYA VS. THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,PROHIBITION AND EXCISE DEPARTMENT,GOVERNMENT OF TAMILNADU,FORT ST. GEORGE,CHENNAI-9 AND ANOTHER [REFERRED]
FATHIMA SUDHA @ ESAKI SUDHA V. DISTRICT COLLECTOR & DISTRICT MAGISTRATE,TIRUNELVELI DISTRICT [REFERRED]
UMMU SABEENA VS. STATE OF KERALA [REFERRED]
MANJULA VS. STATE BY THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE [REFERRED]
CHELLASWAMY V. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR AND DISTRICT MAGISTRATE [REFERRED]
JAYANARAYAN SUKUL VS. STATE OF WEST BENGAL [REFERRED]
NIRANJANSINGH VS. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH [REFERRED]
RASHID SK VS. STATE OF WEST BENGAL [REFERRED]
TARA CHAND VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN [REFERRED]
ICCHU DEVI CHORARIA VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED]
RAGHAVENDRA SINGH VS. SUPERINTENDENT DISTRICT JAIL KANPUR [REFERRED]
MOHINUDDIN ALIAS MOIN MASTER VS. DISTRICT MAGISTRATE BEED [REFERRED]
RAMA DHONDU BORADE VS. V K SARAF COMMISSIONER OF POLICE [REFERRED]
MAHESH KUMAR CHAUHAN ALIAS BANTI VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED]
K M ABDULLA KUNHI AND B L ABDUL KHADER VS. UNION OF INDIA STATE OF KARNATAKA [REFERRED]
RAM SUKRYA MHATRE VS. R D TYAGI [REFERRED]
RAJAMMAL VS. STATE OF TAMIL NADU [REFERRED]
SOLOMON CASTRO VS. STATE OF KERALA [REFERRED]
DISTRICT COLLECTOR VS. SHAIK HASAMATH BEEBI [REFERRED]
REKHA VS. STATE OF TAMIL NADU [REFERRED]
RASHID KAPADIA VS. MEDHA GADGIL [REFERRED]
SHERENE VS. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE EGMORE CHENNAI 8 [REFERRED]
D KARUPPIAH VS. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE GREATER CHENNAI EGMORE CHENNAI [REFERRED]
RAMAMURTHY VS. STATE OF TAMIL NADU [REFERRED]
G KALAISELVI VS. STATE OF TAMIL NADU [REFERRED]
THARMAR VS. STATE OF TAMILNADU [REFERRED]
ABDUL NASAR ADAM ISMAIL VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [REFERRED]
HARSHALA SANTOSH PATIL VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [REFERRED]

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, who is the wife of the detenu, namely, Balraj, aged 52, branded as 'Boot-legger' in detention order in Cr.M.P.No.32/2014, dated 10.06.2014 by the District Collector and District Magistrate, Tiruchirappalli District, Tiruchirappalli, has sought for a writ of Habeas Corpus Petition.

(2.) The Detenu has come to the adverse notice of the police in four case. The first and fourth adverse cases were registered in Cr.Nos.243/2013 and 52/2014 under Sections 4(1)(k) TNP Act, 1937 and 4(1)(k) r/w 4(1-A) TNP Act, 1937 respectively on the file of Tiruchirappalli, Siruganur PS. The second and third adverse cases were registered in Cr.Nos.706 and 751 of 2013, under Sections 4(1)(k) TNP Act, 1937 and 4(1)(k) TNP Act, 1937 respectively, on the file of Tiruchirappalli, Tiruverambur PEW P.S. The first three adverse cases were ended in conviction and the fourth adverse case is under investigation, when the order of detention was passed. The order of detention was passed on the basis of the ground case alleged to have registered on 17.05.2014 on the file of Tiruverumbur PEW Cr.No.402/2014 under Sections 4(1)(aa) r/w 4(1-A) TNP Act. On being satisfied that the Detenu is habitually indulging in activities, affecting the public Order and public health, the Detaining Authority has clamped the Detention Order on the Detenu. At paragraph 5, the Detaining Authority has concluded as follows:

(3.) Challenging the Impugned Order, though the learned counsel for the petitioner inter alia has raised many contentions, We do not propose to go into all the grounds of challenge, since in our considered view, the point urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner that there was a delay in consideration of the representation merits acceptance.

Click here to view full judgment.

SAGUNTHALA Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU; DISTRICT COLLECTOR AND DISTRICT MAGISTRATE; SUPERINTENDENT OF CENTRAL PRISON

Referred Judgements :-

JUDGEMENT

QUick Links

Get in Touch

Email

Contact Numbers

Address