Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 1480 (MAD)

Kuppu @ Kuppuammal v. Secretary to Government

2014-06-17

G.CHOCKALINGAM, V.DHANAPALAN

body2014
Judgment V. Dhanapalan, J. 1. The petitioner is the wife of the detenu. The detenu has been branded as a "Goonda" as contemplated under Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982 and detained under order of the 2nd respondent passed in Memo No.1224/BDFGISSV/2013, dated 03.10.2013. 2. The detenu came to adverse notice in the following cases:- Sr. No. Police Station and Crime No. Sections of Law 1. R-4, Soundarapandiyanar Angadi Police Station, Crime No.1027 of 2013 379 IPC 2. E-2, Egmore Police Station, Crime No.1055 of 2013 379 IPC 3. F-2, Egmore Police Station, Crime No.1187 of 2013 379 IPC The ground case alleged against the detenu is one registered on 26.09.2013 by the Inspector of Police, F-2 Egmore Police Station in Crime No.1193 of 2013 for the offences under Sections 341, 336, 392, 397 and 506(ii) I.P.C. Aggrieved by the order of detention, the present petition has been filed. 3. Besides several grounds raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner to assail the impugned order of detention, he mainly focused his argument on the ground that there is non-application of mind on the part of the detaining authority as regards the remand period, which has deprived 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. The detaining authority, in paragraph No.3 of the impugned detention order, has stated that 14th Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai, ordered the accused to be remanded till 09.10.2013 and lodged him at Central Prison, Puzhal at Chennai, as remand prisoner. However, on verification of the booklet at page No.85, which is the remand order dated 27.09.2013, it is seen that the accused was remanded to judicial custody till 11.10.2013. It is a glaring error committed by the detaining authority without application of mind on the material placed and therefore, the same would vitiate the impugned detention order. 6. For the aforesaid reason, the impugned detention order passed by the 2nd respondent, detaining the detenu, namely, Raji @ Attu Raj, S/o.Varadhappan Naidu made in Memo No.1224/BDFGISSV/2013, dated 03.10.2013, is quashed and the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed. 6. For the aforesaid reason, the impugned detention order passed by the 2nd respondent, detaining the detenu, namely, Raji @ Attu Raj, S/o.Varadhappan Naidu made in Memo No.1224/BDFGISSV/2013, dated 03.10.2013, 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.