Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 1417 (MAD)

Usha v. Secretary to the Government

2014-06-16

G.CHOCKALINGAM, V.DHANAPALAN

body2014
Judgment : V. Dhanapalan, J. 1. The petitioner is the sister 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 Memo No.972/BDFGISSV/2013 dated 12.09.2013. 2. The detenu came to adverse notice in the following cases :- Sl.No. Police Station and Crime No. Sections of Law 1. P-4 Basin Bridge Police Station Crime No.455/2012 147, 148, 341, 324, 307 r/w 34 IPC @ 147, 148, 341, 324, 307 r/w 149 IPC 2. P-1 Pulianthope Police Station Crime No.1047/2013 147, 148, 341, 302 IPC @ r/w 149, 120(b) IPC 3. P-4 Basin Bridge Police Station Crime No.494/2013 341, 385, 506(ii) IPC The ground case alleged against the detenu is one registered on 12.07.2013 by the Inspector of Police, P-1 Pulianthope Police Station in Crime No.1052/2013 for offences under Sections 341, 294(b), 324, 307, 336, 427 and 506(ii) IPC r/w 34 IPC. 3. Besides several grounds, learned counsel for the petitioner would mainly contend that though the English and Tamil version of the Remand extension order dated 06.09.2013 is furnished in the booklet, there is no mention in that order as to the extension of remand of the accused, thereby depriving the detenu in making effective representation to the authorities concerned 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. 5. For better appreciation of the case, the Remand Extension Order dated 06.09.2013 is extracted hereunder: ''Accused not seen on 06.09.2013. Through Video Conference. Call on 20.09.2013.” 6. On a scrutiny of the booklet, at pages 175 and 176, which pertain to the English and Tamil version of the Remand Extension Order dated 06.09.2013, it is seen that there is no mention as to extension of Remand order. Thus, when there is material discrepancy, the opportunity of making effective representation upon knowledge of the factual situation stands denied to the detenu and the same, which amounts to infringement of right ensured under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India, would vitiate the order of detention. 7. Accordingly, the impugned detention order passed by the 2nd respondent, detaining the detenu Gopal @ Kamal made in No.972/BDFGISSV/2013 dated 12.09.2013 is quashed and the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed. 7. Accordingly, the impugned detention order passed by the 2nd respondent, detaining the detenu Gopal @ Kamal made in No.972/BDFGISSV/2013 dated 12.09.2013 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.