Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 1589 (MAD)

Thilaga v. Secretary to Government, New Delhi

2014-06-19

G.CHOCKALINGAM, V.DHANAPALAN

body2014
Judgment : V. Dhanapalan, J. 1. The petitioner is the wife of the detenu. The detenu has been detained under Sub Section (2) of Section 3 of the Puducherry Prevention of Anti-social Activities Act, 2008 [Act No.10 of 2010] by the order of the 3rd respondent vide No.25/DM/RO/D2/PPSAAA/2013, dated 30.10.2013. 2. In the grounds of detention, it is stated that the detenu S.Moorthy is a dangerous person habitually involved in body offences punishable under Chapters XVI, XVII and XXII of Indian Penal Code. 3. The detenu's previous involvement in criminal cases are as follows :- Sl.No. Police Station and Crime Number Sections of Law Status of the Case 1. Muthialpet Police Station Crime No.131 of 1992,dated 10.06.1992 324 IPC @ 326 IPC Acquittal 2. Crime No.114 of 1997 147, 148 and 302 IPC r/w. 149 @ 147, 148, 342 and 302 IPC and 120-B (i) IPC r/w. 149 IPC Acquittal 3. Muthialpet Police Station, Crime No.58 of 2000 Dated 14.04.2000 341, 323 IPC r/w. 34 IPC Compounded 4. Muthialpet Police Station, Crime No.215 of 2005 Dated 16.09.2005 341 and 307 IPC Acquittal 5. Grand Bazaar Police Station, Crime No.180 of 2011 Dated 30.05.2011 147, 148, 341 and 302 r/w. 149 IPC Pending Trial 6. Muthialpet Police Station, Crime No.190 of 2011 Dated 24.08.2011 120-B, 116 and 506 (ii) IPC r/w. 34 IPC Pending Trial 7. Orleanpet Police Station, Crime No.149 of 2012 Dated 23.05.2012 302, 307 IPC r/w. 34 IPC @ 147, 148, 302, 307, 109, 120- B r/w. 149 IPC Pending Trial 4. In the grounds of detention, the detaining authority has further stated that the detenu committed offences under Sections 116, 120-B, 147, 148, 302, 307, 323, 324, 326, 341, 342 and 506(ii) IPC related to the activities that endanger human life, personal safety and property of others which are punishable under Chapter XVI and XVII & XXII of IPC. Hence, the detaining authority arrived at the subjective satisfaction that the detenu S.Moorthy had indulged in activities that are prejudicial to the maintenance of public peace and public order and clamped the order of detention on him in exercise of the powers conferred under G.O.Ms.No.42 dated 13.09.2013 of Home Department, Puducherry. 5. Hence, the detaining authority arrived at the subjective satisfaction that the detenu S.Moorthy had indulged in activities that are prejudicial to the maintenance of public peace and public order and clamped the order of detention on him in exercise of the powers conferred under G.O.Ms.No.42 dated 13.09.2013 of Home Department, Puducherry. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that a copy of the bail order in Crime No.149/2012 relied on by the detaining authority has not been furnished to the detenu, 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. 6. We have heard the learned Government Advocate (Pondicherry). He has not disputed the said submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner and on verification of the booklet, would submit that the said bail order is not furnished in the booklet. 7. On a careful scrutiny of the booklet, it is seen that the bail order in Crime No.149/2012 for offences under Sections 302, 307 IPC r/w, 34 IPC @ 147, 148, 302, 307, 109, 120-B IPC r/w.149 IPC of Orleanpet Police Station, relied on by the detaining authority has not been furnished to the detenu. Any document relied on by the detaining authority in the detention order has to be furnished to the detenu to enable him make an effective representation upon knowledge of the factual situation. In this case, the same is denied to the detenu, which amounts to infringement of right ensured under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India, thereby vitiating the order of detention. 8. For the aforesaid reason, the impugned detention order passed by the third respondent, detaining the detenu, namely, S.Moorthy, S/o. Subramani, made in Memo No.25/DM/RO/D2/PPSAAA/2013, dated 30.10.2013 is quashed and the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed. The above named detenu, who is detained in the Central Prison, Kalapet, Puducherry, is ordered to be set at liberty forthwith, unless his custody is required in connection with any other case. 9. 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.