Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 1231 (MAD)

Amudha v. Secretary to the Government

2014-06-10

G.CHOCKALINGAM, V.DHANAPALAN

body2014
Judgment : V. Dhanapalan, J. 1. The petitioner is the mother of the detenu. The detenu has been branded as a "Goonda" under the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982 and detained under the order of the 2nd respondent passed in BDFGISSV No.1184/2013, dated 30.09.2013. 2. The detenu came to adverse notice in the following cases: S.No. Police Station and Crime No. Sections of Law 1 B-6 Mappedu Police Station Crime No.312/2012 147, 148, 449, 294(b), 324, 302 IPC r/w 149 IPC 2 V-1 Villivakkam Police Station Crime No.1360/2013 385, 506(ii) IPC The ground case alleged against the detenu is one registered on 18.09.2013 by the Inspector of Police, V-1, Villivakkam Police Station in Crime No.1607/2013 for offences under Sections 341, 397, 336 and 506(ii) IPC. 3. Though learned counsel for the petitioner has raised several other grounds to assail the order of detention, he mainly focussed his arguments on the ground that the detaining authority, while detaining the detenu, has not furnished a legible copy of the document annexed in the booklet, thereby depriving the detenu to make an effective representation. He would further submit that the said act of the detaining authority is against the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Manjit Singh Grewal @ Gogi vs. Union of India and others, reported in 1990 (Supp) SCC 59 and therefore, on this sole ground, the detention order is liable to be quashed. 4. We have heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor on the above submission. He also endorses the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that pages 9 to 14 of the booklet are found illegible. 5. On a consideration of the submissions made on either side and upon perusal of the documents available on record, especially pages 9 to 14 of the booklet, it is clear that the detaining authority, by providing an illegible copy of the document, which is the list of witnesses pertaining to the first adverse case of the detenu, has taken away the rights of the detenu to effectively defend himself against his detention. 6. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Manjit Singh Grewal @ Gogi vs. Union of India and others (supra) was pleased to hold as under: "3. It appears that the appellant had asked for certain copies of the documents, which admittedly were there with the respondent – Union of India. 6. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Manjit Singh Grewal @ Gogi vs. Union of India and others (supra) was pleased to hold as under: "3. It appears that the appellant had asked for certain copies of the documents, which admittedly were there with the respondent – Union of India. Copies of the documents were supplied, but the same were not legible. This position is also apparent. It is not necessary in the facts of this case to go into the question whether these documents were relevant or material. 4. In view of the fact that the copies of the documents were, in fact, supplied at the request of the appellant, but the copies supplied were illegible, we are of the opinion, that the safeguards provided by the Constitution have not been followed. In that view of the matter the decision of the High Court cannot be sustained and, therefore, is set aside. The Order of detention dated June 9, 1988 is quashed and the appellant be set at liberty unless he is required in respect of any other proceedings." 7. Thus, in the light of the above settled legal position, taking note of the supply of an illegible copy of the List of witnesses of the first adverse case of the detenu and also considering the fact that safeguards provided by the Constitution have not been followed, the impugned detention order passed by the 2nd respondent, detaining the detenu Vicky @ Vignesh, male, aged 23 years made in BDFGISSV No.1184/2013, dated 30.09.2013 is quashed and the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed. The above named detenu is ordered to be set at liberty forthwith, unless his custody is required in connection with any other case. 8. However, it is made clear that this order shall not preclude the authorities concerned to effectively contest the matter before the Regular Court, uninfluenced by the above order. It is also made clear that this order shall not confer any right or advantage whatsoever to the detenu to claim anything before the Regular Court.