Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 1594 (MAD)

Murugan v. State of Tamil Nadu

2014-06-19

G.CHOCKALINGAM, V.DHANAPALAN

body2014
Judgment V. Dhanapalan, J. 1. The detenu himself is the petitioner. The detenu has been branded as a "Goonda" as contemplated under Section 2(f) of the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982 and detained under the order of the second respondent passed in No.1003 of 2013, dated 14.09.2013. 2. As per the grounds of detention dated 14.09.2013, the detenu came to the adverse notice in the following cases:- Sl. No. Police Station & Crime No. Section of Law 1 G-5 Secretariat Colony Police Station Cr. No.1160/2011 294(b), 392, 397, 506(ii) IPC r/w 34 I.P.C. 2 G-5 Secretariat Colony Police Station Cr. No.44/2012 457, 380 I.P.C. 3 G-5 Secretariat Colony Police Station Cr. No.781/2012 379 I.P.C. r/w 34 I.P.C 4 G-5 Secretariat Colony Police Station Cr. No.1064/2012 457 and 380 I.P.C. 5 C-1 Flower Bazaar Police Station Cr.No.97/2013 457 and 380 I.P.C. 3. In para 3 of the grounds of detention, it is stated that the detenu is also involved in the commission of the offence, which took place on 01.09.2013 at 20.00 hours, which led to the registration of a case by Inspector of Police, T-7 Tank Factory Police Station, in Crime No.574 of 2013 for the offences under Sections 341, 294(b), 323, 336, 427 and 506(ii) r/w 397 I.P.C. It is further stated that the detenu was arrested and produced before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Alandur, Chennai on the same day and remanded to judicial custody. 4. The detaining authority, on being satisfied upon the materials placed before him that the activities of the detenu are prejudicial to the maintenance of public order, clamped the order of detention. Challenging the said order, the petitioner is before this Court by way of this habeas corpus petition. 5. Though learned counsel for the petitioner has raised several other grounds to assail the order of detention, he mainly focused his argument on the ground that there is a delay in disposal of the representation dated 30.10.2013, which is violative of Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India and therefore, on this sole ground alone, the detention order is liable to be quashed. 6. We have heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor on the above submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the records. 7. 6. We have heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor on the above submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the records. 7. On a careful scrutiny of the impugned order, it is seen that the detaining authority has passed the order of detention on 14.09.2013 and on receipt of a copy of detention order, a representation dated 30.10.2013 was made to the authorities concerned, which was received on 31.10.2013, for which the remarks called on 04.11.2013 were received on 11.11.2013. On submission of the file on 13.11.2013, it was dealt with by both the Under Secretary and Deputy Secretary on the same day and thereafter, the file was submitted to the Minister on 16.11.2013. Finally the representation of the detenu was decided to be rejected vide letter dated 16.11.2013. 8. In this whole process, there occurred a delay of more than 5 days, namely, between 04.11.2013 and 11.11.2013, excluding the holidays, which would definitely cause great prejudice to the detenu and amount to an infringement of right ensured under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India. Therefore, the impugned detention order cannot be sustained and is vitiated. 9. In the result, this habeas corpus petition is allowed and the impugned detention order made in No.1003/2013, dated 14.09.2013 is set aside. The detenu – Murugan son of Murugesan, is directed to be set at liberty forthwith, unless his custody is required in connection with any other case.