KHADER Vs. SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner by name Khader who was detained as Goonda by the impugned proceedings dated 07-03-2005 under Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982, challenges the same in this petition.

(2.) LEARNED counsel appearing for the petitioner after taking us through the grounds of detention and all other connected materials, has raised the following contentions: The detaining authority while passing the order of detention, has not considered the alleged adverse case No.3 which is a graver offence than the ground case alleged to have taken place on 2-2-2005; (2) Though the detaining authority has considered that the detenu is in remand in respect of crime Nos. 195/2005 and 202/2005 and 2-3/2005, he was not possessed the order of remand passed by the concerned Magistrate. In the absence of such order/orders and clarification from sponsoring authority, the detention order is liable to be quashed. Though the detaining authority has referred to the confessional statement of Siraj, the same was not furnished. Even after the direction of the Government, the detaining authority has not furnished copy of the same which vitiates the detention order. There was delay in consideration of the representation of the detenu.

(3.) COMING to the second contention, it is true that in para 4 of the grounds of detention, the detaining authority has stated that "I am aware that Thiru Khader is in remand in F.1 Chindatripet Police Station Crime Nos. 195/2005, 202/2005 and 203/2005 and has moved a bail application before the Principal Session Court, Chennai in Crl.M.P.No. 2009/2005 in F.1 Chindatripet P.S. Crime No. 203/2005 and the same is pending...." It is the claim of the learned counsel for the petitioner that though the petitioner was furnished with remand order in respect of Crime No. 203/2005 on the file of F.1 Chindatripet Police Station, no remand order was either produced or supplied to the detenu in respect of Crime No.195/2005 and 202/2005 on the file of the same Police Station. The perusal of paper books supplied to the detenu shows that copy of the remand order in Cr.No. 203/2005 alone was supplied. However, the initial order of remand in Crime No.195/2005 and 202/2005 were supplied to the detenu, though not the remand extension (vide pages 173, 181, 183, and 185 of the paper book). Inasmuch as the detenu was in remand in all the 3 cases and the Crime No. 203/2005 relates to ground case, the remand order/remand extension order were duly supplied to the detenu. The detaining authority was aware of the relevant fact that on the date of the passing of the detention order, namely, 7-3-2005, the detenu was in remand. Merely because the detenu was not supplied with copy of the remand extension order in the other two cases, it cannot be claimed that he lost his right to make representation to the authority. We are satisfied that there is no flaw in the procedure that was followed by the detaining authority.