Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 579 (MAD)

Sikkander Eliyass v. Government of Tamil Nadu

2014-03-04

G.CHOCKALINGAM, V.DHANAPALAN

body2014
Judgment : V.Dhanapalan,J.- 1. The petitioner, who is the father of detenu, namely, Yusuf Siddique @ Syed Abdul Khadar @ Syed, has been branded as a "Pirator" under the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982 and detained under order of the 2nd respondent passed in No.786/BDFGISSV/2013 dated 24.08.2013. 2. The detenu came to adverse notice in the following case:- Sr.No. Police Station and Crime No. Sections of Law 1. T-13, Kundrathur Police Station, Crime No.153 of 2013 51 r/w 52(A), 63, 68(A) of Copy Right Act, 1957. The ground case alleged against the detenu is one registered on 17.08.2013 by the Inspector of Police, Team X, Video Piracy Cell, Central Crime Branch, Chennai in Crime No.65 of 2013 for the offence under Sections 52(A), 68(A), 63 and 65 of Copy Right Act, 1957 and Section 292(2)(a) of IPC. Aggrieved by the order of detention, the present writ petition has been filed. 3. Though several grounds have been raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the order of detention has been challenged firstly on the ground that in the detention order, names of new Tamil films are mentioned as 1) Singam-II, 2) Pattathu Yanai, 3) Sonna Puriyathu and 4) Masani, whereas a reading of the booklet at page no.25 shows names of recent Tamil films as 1) Singam-II, 2) Pattathu Yanai, 3) Sonna Puriyathu and 4) Mariyan, thereby giving wrong reflection of name of 4th film and secondly that both in English and Tamil version of the order, names of films find mentioned only in Tamil language. Therefore, due to the wrong mention of names of films, opportunity of clear understanding and making effective representation on such understanding is lost and the detenu is deprived thereof. This would vitiate the order of detention, which on the face of it, is bad and liable to be set aside. 4. We have heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents, who would submit that the impugned detention order cannot be faulted with owing to minor discrepancies. 5. This would vitiate the order of detention, which on the face of it, is bad and liable to be set aside. 4. We have heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents, who would submit that the impugned detention order cannot be faulted with owing to minor discrepancies. 5. A careful scrutiny of the detention order reveals that out of the seized pirated DVDs, 1) Singam-II, 2) Pattathu Yanai, 3) Sonna Puriyathu and 4) Masani are very recent Tamil films being exhibited in Theatres, but a close reading of the booklet, especially Page No.25 would go to show that even though first three films have been indicated correctly, name of the 4th film in the detention order does not match with the name found at the Form No.91 vide which list of property seized was sent to the concerned Court. Moreover, translated English version of Tamil films has been omitted to be given both in English and Tamil version of the detention order. When there is a discrepancy in reflection of the name of particular film, the opportunity of making an effective representation upon knowledge of the factual situation stands denied. The same, which amounts to an infringement of right ensured under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India, would vitiate the order of detention. For the aforesaid reason, this Court would allow the present petition. 6. Accordingly, the impugned detention order passed by the 2nd respondent, detaining the detenu, namely, Yusuf Siddique @ Syed Abdul Khadar @ Syed, S/o.Sikkander Eliyaas, made in No.786/BDFGISSV/2013 dated 24.08.2013 is quashed and the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed. The above named detenu is ordered to be set at liberty forthwith, unless his custody is required in connection with any other case.