BAGAVATHY Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU REP. BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVT., PROHIBITION & EXCISE DEPT., FORT ST. GEORGE, CHENNAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The order of detention was passed by the Commissioner of Police, Chennai City on 31.1.1999. The petitioner is the mother of the datenu, Santhil. Therefore, she filed this petition challenging the detention order.

(2.) Since the learned counsel raised for consideration by this court only two contentions we do not find it necessary to set out the facts leading to the detention. The learned counsel for the petitioner referred to the grounds of detention at page 4 wherein the Detaining Authority has stated as follows;

(3.) It is true that at pages 37 and 39 we find the materials to the effect that two accused, namely Ramesh and Senthil were in the hospital at the time of arrest and were taking treatment and their remand was extended while they were in the hospital undergoing treatment. At page 51 of the booklet which is dated 28.1.1999 we find the remand extension report wherein it is mentioned that only Ramesh is still in Stanley Hospital undergoing treatment. Further period of extension is asked for from 28.1.1999 for 15 days. At page No. 52 we find a special report which refers to the remand particulars of both the accused namely, Senthil and Dhamodharan alias Dhamu. In this special report it is stated that the remand in respect of Senthil was extended from 2.1.99 to 14.1.99, 28.1.99 to 11.2.99 and is lodged in Central Prison Chennai. Therefore, on reading of these relevant pages of the booklet, we find that there were sufficient materials before the Detaining Authority to satisfy himself that the detenu was in custody on the date of passing of the order of detention which was on 31.1.1999. The special report reveals that on 31.1.1999, the detenu was lodged as remand prisoner in Central Prison, Chennai. Therefore, in such circumstances, we have to hold that there is no non-application of mind arising in this case with reference to the custody of the detenu and hence the contention that the order of detention is vitiated on the ground, cannot be accepted.