Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 3051 (MAD)

Kumar Sinniah v. State of Tamil Nadu

2014-09-02

P.N.PRAKASH, S.RAJESWARAN

body2014
ORDER S. Rajeswaran, J. 1. The Petitioner/detenue, aged 32 years, has filed this petition challenging the order of detention passed by the 1st respondent in G.O. No. SRI/285-4/2013 dated 24.12.2013 under Section 3(1)(i) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (Central Act 52 of 1974). Apart from many legal points raised in the petition to assail the order of detention, the learned counsel for the petitioner would primarily contend that the order of detention being a preventive detention should have been communicated to his close relatives as per the mandate. In this case, the detenue being a citizen of Malaysia of India origin of Tamil Nadu, the arrest of the detenue ought to have been communicated to the Malaysian consulate without fail. In fact, he was arrested in the ground case on 30.11.2013 by the Customs authorities and that was duly informed to the Consulate General of Malaysia, as evidenced from the letter dated 30.11.2013, addressed to the Consulate General of Malaysia Consulate at Chennai. This fact has been communicated by the consulate General of Malaysia at Chennai by a letter dated 2.9.2014 addressed to the learned counsel for the writ Petitioner. 2. Similarly, the detention order dated 24.12.2013 passed subsequently under COFEPOSA Act, ought to have been informed to the Malaysian Consulate General to enable them to inform his relatives at Malaysia, so that they could take resort to legal proceedings. Admittedly, in this case, it has not been communicated, as evidenced from the records produced before this Court. 3. The learned Public Prosecutor also could not lay hands on any communication said to have been sent to the Malaysian Consulate General, after the detention order was passed on 24.12.2013, informing them about the order of detention. 4. In the light of the above factual matrix, we consider that the non-communication of detention order to Consulate General of Malaysia to enable them to inform the relatives of the detenue to take legal steps, is improper and violative of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. This would vitiate the order of detention. On this sole ground, the order of detention is liable to be set aside and accordingly, it is set aside. In the result, this habeas corpus petition is allowed and the detention order in G.O. No. SR.I/285-4/013 Public (SC) Department dated 24.12.2013, passed by the 1st respondent is quashed. This would vitiate the order of detention. On this sole ground, the order of detention is liable to be set aside and accordingly, it is set aside. In the result, this habeas corpus petition is allowed and the detention order in G.O. No. SR.I/285-4/013 Public (SC) Department dated 24.12.2013, passed by the 1st respondent is quashed. The detenue is directed to be set at liberty, forthwith, unless his presence is required in connection with any other case. Petition allowed