Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 741 (MAD)

Mery Dowty v. State of Tamil Nadu

2014-03-24

G.CHOCKALINGAM, V.DHANAPALAN

body2014
JUDGMENT V. Dhanapalan, J. The petitioner is the wife of the detenu and challenge is made to the order of detention dated 20.08.2013 made in Memo No.747/BDFGISSV/2013, passed by the second respondent under which the detenu has been branded as a ‘Goonda' and detained under The Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drug- Offenders, Forest-offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders, Sand offenders, Slum-Grabbers and Video Pirates Act, 1982, hereinafter referred to as Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982. 2. As per the grounds of detention dated 20.08.2013, the detenu came to the adverse notice in the following cases:- Sl. No. Police Station & Crime No. Section of Law 1 J-5 Shastri Nagar Police Station Cr. No. 873 of 2011 379 IPC 2 Maraimalai Nagar Police Station Cr. No. 546/2012 454 and 380 IPC 3 T-11 Thirunindravur Police Station Cr. No. 1992/2012 379 IPC 4 J-1 Saidapet Police Station Cr. No. 760/2013 379 IPC 3. In para-3 of the grounds of detention, it is stated that among other things that the detenu is also involved in the commission of the offence, which took place on 28.06.2013 at about 19.00 hours, which led to the registration of a case by Inspector of Police, K-10 Koyambedu Police Station, in Crime No.795 of 2013 for offences under Sections 341, 323, 336, 427, 397 and 506(ii) IPC. It is further stated that the detenu was arrested on 30.06.2013 at about 06.00 hours and produced before the learned V Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai, and remanded to judicial custody. The detaining authority, on being satisfied upon the materials placed before him that the activities of the detenu are prejudicial to the maintenance of public order, clamped the order of detention. Challenging the said order, petitioner is before this Court in this habeas corpus petition. 4. Amidst several grounds raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner to attack the impugned order of detention, he mainly focussed his argument on the question of non-communication of arrest to the relatives of the detenu. The communication of arrest to the relatives of the detenu is a constitutional requirement and therefore, the impugned order is vitiated in law. 5. We have heard Mr. P. Govindarajan, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents on the above point and perused the material documents produced before us. 6. The communication of arrest to the relatives of the detenu is a constitutional requirement and therefore, the impugned order is vitiated in law. 5. We have heard Mr. P. Govindarajan, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents on the above point and perused the material documents produced before us. 6. On a perusal of the records in its entirety, it is seen that there is no intimation of arrest to the relatives of the detenu and no material has been furnished in the typed-set of papers except the remand report, which informs that there was a communication but to whom it has been communicated and what is the mode of communication are not reflected in the booklet. Therefore, in our considered opinion since there is no proper communication of arrest to the relatives of the detenu which is a constitutional requirement, the impugned detention order is unsustainable and the same is liable to be set aside. 7. Accordingly, the impugned detention order passed by the 2nd respondent, detaining the detenu, namely John Gerald Dowti, made in Memo No.747/BDFGISSV/2013, dated 20.08.2013, 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.