CHINNAPAPPA Vs. DISTRICT MAGISTRATE AND DISTRICT COLLECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner, who is the wife of the detenu by name Velu, who is detained as a "bootlegger" as contemplated under Section 3 (1) of the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Forest Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders, Slum Grabbers and Video Pirates Act, 1982 (Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982), by the impugned detention order dated 27. 05. 2006, challenges the same in this Petition.

(2.) HEARD learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondents.

(3.) AT the foremost, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that even though the detenu was arrested on 17. 04. 2006 with respect to the ground case, the detention order was passed only on 27. 05. 2006 and in the absence of proper explanation by the person concerned, the unexplained delay in passing the impugned order cannot be accepted. Elaborating the above contention, it is brought to our notice that it is not in dispute that the detenu was arrested on 17. 04. 2006. The seized contraband was sent to the Regional Forensic Science Lab, Vellore for Chemical Analysis and the sponsoring authority has received the Chemical Analysis Report dated 24. 04. 2006 even on 25. 04. 2006. It is also not in dispute that the Doctor, who has given treatment to the complainant Ravi, was also examined on 25. 04. 2006 with reference to the Chemical Analysis Report. However, the sponsoring authority prepared the Special Report and sent the same to the detaining authority only on 23. 05. 2006 and finally the detention order was passed on 27. 05. 2006. There is no explanation by the sponsoring authority for not forwarding the papers to the detaining authority for passing an order under Act 14 of 1982 after getting the Chemical Analysis Report dated 24. 04. 2006. In the absence of proper explanation, this Court has taken a view that such delay tends to have affect of snapping link between prejudicial activity and passing of preventive order. In such circumstances, in HCP No. 266 of 2005 dated 21. 06. 2005 reported in 2005 (1) MWN (Criminal) 265 (Ramesh Vs. District Collector and District Magistrate, Tiruchirapalli and Another), this Court, after finding that there was a delay of five weeks even after receipt of the affidavit from the sponsoring authority for passing the detention order, quashed the order of detention. In fact even prior to the said decision, in HCP No. 1149 of 1995 dated 13. 12. 1995, the Division Bench of this Court accepted the similar contention and quashed the detention order.