Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 942 (MAD)

Janaki v. Commissioner of Police

2014-04-16

G.CHOCKALINGAM, V.DHANAPALAN

body2014
Judgment : V. Dhanapalan, J. 1. The petitioner is the wife of detenu. The detenu has been branded as a "Goonda" under the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982 and detained under order of the 1st respondent passed in Memo No.722/BDFGISSV/2013 dated 16.08.2013. 2. The detenu came to adverse notice in the following case:- Sr.No. Police Station and Crime No. Sections of Law 1. P-2, Otteri Police Station, Crime No.447 of 2005 Sections 341, 394 r/w 397 IPC 2. P-1, Pulianthope Police Station, Crime No.74 of 2013 Sections 341, 323 & 302 IPC @ 341, 323, 302 IPC r/w 34 IPC The ground case alleged against the detenu is one registered on 27.07.2013 by the Inspector of Police, P-2, Otteri Police Station in Crime No.1069 of 2013 for offences under Sections 341, 385, 307, 324, 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 has mainly focused his argument on the ground that Tamil version of a report sent by the Police Surgeon, Department of Forensic Medicine, Government Kilpauk Medical College to the Sub-inspector of Police, Pulianthoppu Police Station, regarding cause of death of a person in the 2nd adverse case, which is annexed at Page No.52 of the booklet, has not been furnished to the detenu 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 booklet, it is seen that the detaining authority has failed to furnish the report of the Police Surgeon, Department of Forensic Medicine, Government Kilpauk Medical College, with regard to cause of death of the person in respect of 2nd adverse case in Crime No.74 of 2013, in vernacular language. Non furnishing of the same in the language known to the detenu would definitely 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, would vitiate the order of detention. Thus, for the reasons stated herein-above, the impugned detention order cannot be sustained. 6. 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. Thus, for the reasons stated herein-above, the impugned detention order cannot be sustained. 6. Accordingly, the impugned detention order passed by the 1st respondent, detaining the detenu Suresh, S/o.Thangamani, made in Memo No.722/BDFGISSV/2013 dated 16.08.2013 is quashed and the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed. The above named detenu, who is detained at the Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai, is ordered to be set at liberty forthwith, unless his custody is required in connection with any other case. 7. However, it is made clear that this order shall not preclude authorities concerned 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.