Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 1695 (MAD)

Sumithra v. Secretary to Government

2014-06-25

G.CHOCKALINGAM, V.DHANAPALAN

body2014
Judgment : V. Dhanapalan, J. 1. The petitioner is the daughter of the detenue. The detenue has been branded as a "Drug Offender" as contemplated under Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982 and detained under order of the 2nd respondent passed in Memo No.1436/BDFGISSV/2013, dated 26.10.2013. 2. The detenue came to adverse notice in the following cases :- Sr.No. Police Station and Crime No. Sections of Law 1. M-5, Ennore Police Station, Crime No.976 of 2011 20(b)(ii) NDPS Act 2. M-5, Ennore Police Station, Crime No.1601 of 2012 20(b)(ii) NDPS Act 3. M-5, Ennore Police Station, Crime No.338 of 2013 20(b)(ii) NDPS Act 4. M-5, Ennore Police Station, Crime No.902 of 2013 20(b)(ii) NDPS Act 5. M-5, Ennore Police Station, Crime No.1370 of 2013 20(b)(ii) NDPS Act The ground case alleged against the detenue is one registered on 13.10.2013 by the Inspector of Police, Law and Order, M-5 Ennore Police Station in Crime No.2235/2013 for the offence under Section 20(b) (ii) (B) of NDPS Act. 3. Mr. R.C. Paul Kanagaraj, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would contend that the documents relied on by the detaining authority, viz., statements of the accused and witnesses recorded by the Inspector of Police, have not been furnished to the detenue. Secondly, in the English version of the remand order, the concerned jurisdictional Magistrate is mentioned as XIX Judicial Magistrate, Thiruvallur and the same has been wrongly indicated as Judicial Magistrate, Thiruvotriyur in the vernacular language, which would create confusion in the mind of the detenue to make effective representation. Therefore, on both these grounds, the detention order is liable to be quashed. 4. We have heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor on the above submissions. 5. On a careful scrutiny of the impugned order, it is seen that the detaining authority, taking into account the imminent possibility of the detenue being enlarged on bail and the likelihood of the same is prejudicial to the public order and health, has passed the impugned detention order, wherein it has been mentioned as under in paragraph No.2 of the order : “3.... Thiru.K.Anand, Inspector of Police, Law and Order, M.5, Ennore Police Station, registered a case in M.5 Ennore Police Station Cr.No.2235/2013 u/s 20(b) (ii) (B) of NDPS Act and took up the investigation of the case and examined the witnesses and recorded their statements...” A perusal of the entire booklet reveals that the detaining authority has failed to furnish statements of the accused and witnesses, even though the said fact is found mentioned in the impugned order. Thus, non furnishing of the same would deprive her the opportunity of making effective representation to the authorities concerned and amount to an infringement of right ensured under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India, thereby vitiating the order of detention. 6. To examine the 2nd ground raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner in respect of the discrepancy in mentioning the place of jurisdictional Court, ordering remand of the accused, it is noticed that while the English version informs of the concerned jurisdictional Magistrate as XIX Judicial Magistrate, Thiruvallur, in the Tamil version, the same is wrongly mentioned as Judicial Magistrate, Thiruvotriyur. 7. On verification of the booklet at Page No.88 (Tamil Version), it comes to light that there is a contradiction in mentioning the jurisdictional Magistrate between English and Tamil Versions in respect of the same document, viz., Remand Order of the detenue, wherein two different Courts, namely XIX Judicial Magistrate, Thiruvallur and Judicial Magistrate, Thiruvotriyur are found indicated, which will definitely create confusion in the mind of the detenue as to the exact jurisdictional Magistrate, issuing remand order. Moreover, when there is a discrepancy between English and Tamil versions, the opportunity of detenu making effective representation upon knowledge of the factual situation also stands denied and the same would vitiate the order of detention on the ground of violation of constitutional guarantee given to the citizen. Thus, for the reasons stated herein-above, the impugned detention order cannot be sustained. 8. Accordingly, the impugned detention order passed by the 2nd respondent, detaining the detenue viz., Kuppu, W/o. Vadivel, made in Proceedings No.1436/BDFGISSV/2013, dated 26.10.2013, is quashed and the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed. The above named detenue, who is detained at the Central Prison for Women, Puzhal, Chennai, is ordered to be set at liberty forthwith, unless her custody is required in connection with any other case. 9. The above named detenue, who is detained at the Central Prison for Women, Puzhal, Chennai, is ordered to be set at liberty forthwith, unless her custody is required in connection with any other case. 9. However, in view of serious offences viz., drug offences involved in this matter, it is open to the prosecution 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.