9911796707
TMI Blog2006 (1) TMI 609X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pplied along with the grounds of detention, at page No.25, which is the List of Property sent to the Magistrate, the date is mentioned as '24.6.2005'. The date of despatch is also mentioned as '24.6.2005'. According to the learned counsel, mentioning of date as '24.6.2005', that is, after the date of the impugned detention order dated 15.6.2 005, shows the non-application of mind on the part of the detaining authority. (b) Secondly the learned counsel pointed out that at page No.61 of the paper book, which is the arrest report, the detenu is arrayed as A-1 and one Suresh is arrayed as A-2. Whereas, in the remand report at page No.57, the detenu is arrayed as A-2 and the said Suresh is shown as A-1. According to th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tioning of the date in the List of Property sent to the Magistrate, found at page No.25 of the paper book, will not vitiate the order of detention. 4. With regard to the second point that there is discrepancy in arraying the detenu as A-2 in the remand report found at page NO.57 and as A-1 in the arrest report found at page No.60, the same will not in any way affect the order of detention as the detaining authority could not correct the mistake, even though he found the same, and it has no bearing on the order of detention. 5. As regards the third contention regarding the crime number, the learned Government Advocate replied that even though at page No.61 the crime number is wrongly mentioned as '1347/2005', in all other docum ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... re typographical error, even though in all other documents correct crime number is mentioned as '1374/2005'. 9. After going through all these discrepancies viz., wrong mentioning of the date and crime number and array of the accused, this Court is of the considered view that the same cannot be treated as trivial mistakes and is of the firm view that the order of detention has been passed without application of mind and therefore the detention order is vitiated. 10. The learned Public Prosecutor cited a judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court reported in 2004 SCC (Cri) 662 (Union of India v. Amrit Lal Manchanda) for the proposition that the object of law of preventive detention is not punitive but only preventive, that it is r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
