Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 690 (MAD)

Ravi v. Government of Tamilnadu

2014-03-19

G.CHOCKALINGAM, V.DHANAPALAN

body2014
Judgment V. Dhanapalan, J. 1. The petitioner is the brother-in-law of detenu. The detenu has been branded as a "Black Marketer" under the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982 and detained under order of the 2nd respondent passed in C.No.2/PBMMSEC ACT/2013 (M3) dated 08.11.2013. 2. The detenu came to adverse notice in the following case:- Sl. No. Police Section and Crime No. Section of low 1 Erode Civil Supplies Criminal Investigation Dept., Crime No. 72 of 2012 Section 6(4) of TNSC (RDCS) Order 1982 r/w 7(1)(a)(ii) of EC Act, 1955 2 Erode Civil Supplies Criminal Investigation Dept., Crime No. 74 of 2012 Section 6(4) of TNSC (RDCS) Order 1982 r/w 7(1)(a)(ii) of EC Act, 1955 3 Erode Civil Supplies Criminal Investigation Dept., Crime No. 393 of 2013 Section 6(4) of TNSC (RDCS) Order 1982 r/w 7(1)(a)(ii) of EC Act, 1955 The ground case alleged against the detenu is one registered on 11.10.2013 by the Inspector of Police, Erode Civil Supplies Criminal Investigation in Crime No.412 of 2013 for offences under Section 6(4) of TNSC (RDCS) Order 1982 r/w 7(1)(a)(ii) of EC Act. 1955. 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 focussed his argument on the ground that though the detaining authority, while detaining the detenu, has mentioned about the extension of remand of the detenu to judicial custody till 08.11.2013 in para 3 of the detention order, but such extension order has not been furnished to the detenu, which has deprived the detenu in making effective representation for his redressal 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. From a perusal of the detention order at paragraph no.3(i), the detaining authority stated that the detenu was remanded to judicial custody, lodged at Central Prison, Coimbatore upto 25.10.2013 and subsequently, his remand period was extended till 08.11.2013. Once a particular document is relied in the detention order, it is incumbent on the detaining authority to provide such document/order to the detenu. Once a particular document is relied in the detention order, it is incumbent on the detaining authority to provide such document/order to the detenu. But a close reading of the entire booklet, especially page no.187, reveals extension of his remand upto 25.10.2013 only and there is no order annexed as to the subsequent period of extension till 08.11.2013, though the said fact finds place in the detention order, which would definitely create confusion in the mind of the detenu and also deprive him the opportunity of making effective representation to the authorities concerned. The same, which amounts to an infringement of right ensured under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India, vitiates the order of detention. Thus, for the reasons stated herein-above, the impugned detention order cannot be sustained. 6. Accordingly, the impugned detention order passed by the 2nd respondent, detaining the detenu Thomas @ Thomson, S/o. Chithirai Pandiyan, made in C.No.2/PBMMSEC ACT/2013 (M3) dated 08.11.2013 is quashed and the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed. The above named detenu, who is detained at the Central Prison, Coimbatore, is ordered to be set at liberty forthwith, unless his custody is required in connection with any other case.