Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 1625 (MAD)

Chandru @ Chandrakumar v. Commissioner of Police

2014-06-23

G.CHOCKALINGAM, V.DHANAPALAN

body2014
Judgment : V. Dhanapalan, J. 1. The petitioner is the detenu himself. The detenu has been branded as a "Goonda" under the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982 and detained under order of the 1st respondent passed in BDFGISSV No.989 of 2013 dated 13.09.2013. 2. The detenu came to adverse notice in the following cases:- Sr.No. Police Station and Crime No. Sections of Law 1. J-10, Semmanchery Police Station, Crime No.919 of 2011 Section 394 IPC 2. S-8, Adambakkam Police Station, Crime No.853 of 2011 Section 379 IPC 3. S-8, Adambakkam Police Station, Crime No.880 of 2011 Section 379 IPC 4. S-8, Adambakkam Police Station, Crime No.1060 of 2011 Section 380 IPC 5. S-8, Adambakkam Police Station, Crime No.1083 of 2011 Sections 341, 336, 427, 392, 397 and 506(ii) IPC 6. J-10, Semmanchery Police Station, Crime No.1067 of 2012 Sections 341, 324, 392, 336, 427 and 506(ii) IPC The ground case alleged against the detenu is one registered on 03.09.2013 by the Inspector of Police, J-10, Semmanchery Police Station in Crime No.954 of 2013 for offences under Sections 341, 323, 294(b), 397 and 506(ii) 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 there is a wrong mention of O.P. number in the impugned order, which was relied on by the detaining authority in terms of similar case reliance, pursuant to which, the detenu has lost the opportunity of 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. A careful scrutiny of the booklet at Page No.193, which is the bail order granted to accused by this Court and the same was relied on by the detaining authority in the impugned order for detaining the detenu, would reveal Crl.O.P.number as 15963 of 2011, where as the detaining authority has wrongly mentioned the Crl.O.P. Number as 15965 of 2011 in the impugned order of detention. The said act of detaining authority would certainly create confusion in the mind of the detenu and the opportunity of detenu to make effective representation upon knowledge of the factual situation also stands denied, amounting to an infringement of right ensured under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India. Thus, the impugned order is not sustained and is liable to be set aside. 6. For the aforesaid reason, the impugned detention order passed by the 1st respondent, detaining the detenu, namely, Chandru @ Chandrakumar, S/o.Saminathan, made in BDFGISSV No.989 of 2013 dated 13.09.2013, 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. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.