Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 1706 (MAD)

Saratha v. Commissioner of Police, Chennai

2014-06-25

G.CHOCKALINGAM, V.DHANAPALAN

body2014
Judgment V. Dhanapalan, J. 1. The petitioner is the mother 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 first respondent passed in BDFGISSV No. 1349 of 2013 dated 15.10.2013. 2. The detenu came to adverse notice in the following cases:– S. No. Police Station and Crime No. Sections of Law 1. Kelambakkam Police Station, Crime No. 4 of 2011 147, 148, 363, 341, 302 and 201 IPC r/w 149 IPC 2. J-11 Kannaki Nagar Police Station, Crime No. 1807 of 2013 392 IPC The ground case alleged against the detenu is one registered on 03.10.2013 by the Inspector of Police, J-11, Kannagi Nagar Police Station in Crime No. 1820 of 2013 for the offences under Sections 294(b), 297, 427 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 mainly focused his argument on the ground that there is discrepancy as to the person to whom the intimation of arrest in the ground case was given. The learned counsel would submit that though in the arrest memo, it has been stated that the arrest was intimated to the uncle of the detenu his name has been shown as Ramalingam, who is none else the father of the detenu. The learned counsel would further submit that there is variation between the English version of the arrest report and the Tamil version. For the above reasons, the impugned order of detention is liable to be quashed. 4. We have heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor on the above point, who submits that the detenu is involved in serious offences and technical lapses cannot be the ground to quash the detention order. 5. By perusal of the booklet, especially Page No. 69 arrest memo, it is seen that intimation of arrest of the detenu has been given to the uncle of the detenu and his name has been shown as Ramalingam, S/o Duraisamy. But the said Ramalingam is the father of the detenu. Further, in the space meant for the signature of the witness, one Pakkiri has signed and the person, to whom the arrest was intimated, was not mentioned and his signature has also not been obtained. But the said Ramalingam is the father of the detenu. Further, in the space meant for the signature of the witness, one Pakkiri has signed and the person, to whom the arrest was intimated, was not mentioned and his signature has also not been obtained. Therefore, it could be construed that there is no proper communication of arrest to the relatives of the detenu. Further, there is also variation between the English version of the arrest report and the Tamil version. In the English version of the arrest report found at Page No. 65 of the booklet, in the 6th column, it has been stated as follows:- 6. How disposed of, with date and hour of disposal, sent to remand on 03.10.2013 whereas in the Vernacular version found at Page No.67, it has been stated as follows:- (Tamil) "6. In the Vernacular version of the arrest report, it has been stated that the accused has been sent to Judicial Magistrate Court, Alandur for remand, but in the English version, it has been simply stated that sent to remand on 03.10.2013. The said variation would create confusion in the mind of the detenu and the detenu is prevented from making effective representation. For these reasons, the detention order cannot be allowed to stand and the same is liable to be quashed." 7. Accordingly, the impugned detention order passed by the first respondent, detaining the detenu, namely, Chittibabu, S/o Ramalingam, made in BDFGISSV No. 1349 of 2013 dated 15.10.2013 is quashed and the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed. The above named detenu, who is detained in the Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai is ordered to be set at liberty forthwith, unless his custody is required in connection with any other case. 8. However, in view of serious 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.