Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 1453 (MAD)

Karpagam v. Secretary to the Govt

2014-06-17

G.CHOCKALINGAM, V.DHANAPALAN

body2014
Judgment : V. Dhanapalan, J. 1. The petitioner is the sister of detenu. The detenu has been branded as a "Goonda" under the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982 and detained under order of the 2nd respondent passed in Memo No.1369/BDFGISSV/2013 dated 17.10.2013. 2. The detenu came to adverse notice in the following cases:- Sr.No. Police Station and Crime No. Sections of Law 1. T-1, Ambathur Police Station, Crime No.712 of 2010 Sections 341, 302 IPC @ 147, 148, 341, 302 IPC r/w 149 IPC 2. T-1, Ambathur Police Station, Crime No.489 of 2011 Sections 384 and 506(ii) IPC 3. T-1, Ambathur Police Station, Crime No.1662 of 2012 Sections 341, 294(b), 323, 392 IPC 4. T-1, Ambathur Police Station, Crime No.1960 of 2012 Sections 341, 294(b), 336, 427, 392, 397 and 506(ii) IPC 5. T-1, Ambathur Police Station, Crime No.2659 of 2012 Sections 341, 294(b), 336, 427, 392, 397 and 506(ii) IPC 6. T-6, Avadi Police Station, Crime No.1823 of 2013 Sections 341, 392 and 506(i) IPC The ground case alleged against the detenu is one registered on 24.09.2013 by the Inspector of Police, T-6, Avadi Police Station in Crime No.1825 of 2013 for offences under Sections 341, 336, 307, 427, 392, 506(ii) r/w 397 IPC. Aggrieved by the order of detention, the present petition has been filed. 3. Though learned counsel for the petitioner has raised several other grounds to assail the order of detention, he has mainly focused his argument on the ground that Tamil version of arrest report in respect of Crime No.1825 of 2013, ground case, which is annexed at Page No.124 of the booklet has not been furnished to the detenu, which has deprived the detenu in making representation for his redressal 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. From a perusal of the booklet at Page No.124, it is seen that though the detaining authority has relied on the arrest report for Crime No.1825 of 2013, the said order, though placed in English version, has not been furnished to the detenu in the vernacular version. Non furnishing of the same in the language known to the detenu would definitely deprive him the opportunity of making effective representation to the authorities concerned. Non furnishing of the same in the language known to the detenu would definitely deprive him the opportunity of making effective representation to the authorities concerned. The same, which amounts to an infringement of right ensured under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India, vitiates the order of detention. Thus, for the reasons stated herein-above, the impugned detention order cannot be sustained. 6. For the aforesaid reason, the impugned detention order passed by the 2nd respondent, detaining the detenu, namely, Sekar @ Lottai Sekar, S/o.Rajamanickam, made in Memo No.1369/BDFGISSV/2013 dated 17.10.2013, is quashed and the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed. The above named detenu, who is detained at the Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai, is ordered to be set at liberty forthwith, unless his custody is required in connection with any other case. 7. However, it is made clear that this order shall not preclude 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.