Vathsala v. The Secretary to Government State of Tamil Nadu Home Prohibition and Excise Department & Ors.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS Dated : 06.01.2009 Coram :The Hon’ble Mr. Justice ELIPE DHARMA RAOandThe Hon’ble Mr. Justice S.TAMILVANANH.C.P.No.1622 of 2008 Vathsala ... Petitionervs.1. The Secretary to Government State of Tamil Nadu Home Prohibition and Excise Department, Fort St. George, Chennai – 600 009.2. The Commissioner of Police Chennai City, Egmore, Chennai- 600 008... RespondentsPetition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of Indiato issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus, directing the respondents toproduce the detenu Rajesh, Son of Desappan, aged 23 years, who isnow detained in Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai – 66, in pursuanceof the detention order passed by the 2nd respondent on 25.07.2008in Memo No.231/BDFGISSV/2008, before this Court and to call forthe records and set aside the order and set the detenu at libertyforthwith.For Petitioner : Mr.S.Swamidoss ManokaranFor Respondents : Mr.N.R.Elango Addl. Public ProsecutorO R D E RS.TAMILVANAN, J.This Habeas Corpus petition has been filed under Article 226of the Constitution of India by the petitioner challenging theorder of detention, dated 25.07.2008 passed by the Commissioner ofPolice/detaining authority, Chennai City, who is the secondrespondent herein. The petitioner herein is the mother of thedetenu, who was detained as 'Goonda' under Tamil Nadu Act 14 of1982. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

2. As per the impugned order, there are four adversecases registered against the detenu. The first case inCrime.No.545 of 2006 on the file of the N.1 Royapuram PoliceStation which was registered under Section 399 IPC, on thealleged occurrence that had taken place on 06.04.2006. The secondcase in Crime No.28 of 2007 on the file of N.4 Fishing HarbourPolice Station which was registered under Sections 341, 323, 324and 506(ii) IPC. The third adverse case in Crime No.320 of 2007was registered under Sections 147, 148, 341, 506(ii), 302 IPC r/w149, 109 and 120 (b) IPC on the file of M.2 Madhavaram PoliceStation. The fourth adverse case was registered in Crime No.156 of2008 on the file of the N.2 Kasimedu Police Station under Sections341,323,385,397 and 506(ii) IPC. 3. As per the ground case, on 09.07.2008 at about9.00p.m., the petitioner along with the other accused came in amotor cycle, wrongfully restraining one Chinniyan atPudhumanaikuppam First street near Boodha Kaliamman Koil andbeated him with hands and legs and at the point of knifethreatened to murder him. On account of the same, the saidChinniyan lodged a complaint. Based on the said complaint, a casein N.2 Kasimedu Police station, Crime No.171 of 2008 underSections 341,323 and 506(ii) IPC was registered. On 12.07.2008 atabout 10.30hrs, while the said Chinniyan was returning from hishouse to Tondiarpet market, on the way, at the junction ofKummalammal Koil Street and Thandavarayan Street, the detenu andtwo other accused came in a motor cycle, wrongfully restrained thesaid Chinniyan and caused bleeding injuries, by using knife, overthe back side of his neck and also threatened the public bypicking up cool drink bottles and hurled the same against thepublic.4. According to the petitioner, her son the detenu is anun-married person studied only upto 5th standard in a CorporationSchool and working as a fisherman and also doing work as lorrycleaner for daily wages to support his family. According to thepetitioner, on 10.07.2008 when the detenu went to the Magistrate'sCourt, Thiruvallur to attend a case, he was forcibly taken to thepolice station and the case was foisted against him. Though inthe grounds of detention, it is stated that the representation ofthe petitioner dated 16.07.2008 was considered by the detainingauthority, no documents relating to the same are available in thebooklet supplied to the detenu. 5.Mr.S.Swamidoss Manokaran, learned counsel appearing for thepetitioner submitted that there is no valid remand on the date ofdetention order. The remand extension order said to have beenpassed on 27.08.2008 is a vital document, however, the copy of the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ same was not served on the detenu, which vitiates the detentionorder. Learned counsel further contended that there were no suchactivities by the detenu, which are prejudicial to the maintenanceof public order and therefore, the detention order is totallyunwarranted. The first case registered in Crime No.547 of 2006under Section 399 IPC ended in acquittal by the V Fast TrackCourt, Chennai. Though the detenu made a representation on30.09.2008 to the first respondent, the same was not considered.According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the groundcase has been foisted against the detenu, in order to detain himunder the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982. Learned counsel furthersubmitted that as per the judgment rendered in T.M.Syed Ali andanother vs State of Tamil Nadu rep. by its Chief Secretary, FortSt. George, Chennai-9 and five others reported in 1999(ii) CTC 490as the representation made on behalf of the detenu prior to theorder of detention, though considered by the detaining authority,was not placed before the advisory Board or before the StateGovernment, such non-consideration of the Advisory Board or theState Government will have the effect of vitiating the order ofpre-detention. The learned counsel also relied on a DivisionBench decision of this Court in (M.Venda vs. The State of TamilNadu, rep. By its Secretary to Government, Prohibition and ExciseDepartment, Chennai and another)reported in 2004 M.L.J. (Crl.)769, wherein the Court allowed the Habeas Corpus Petition and setaside the order of detention.6.In the instant case, as per the order dated 31.10.2008,Joint Secretary to the Government of Tamil Nadu has intimated thatthe representation of the detenu dated 16.07.2008 was considered.It was intimated earlier to the petitioner that her son wasarrested for the offences committed and he was remanded accordingto law. The copies of all the relied on documents were furnishedto him and as submitted by the learned Additional PublicProsecutor, it is seen that the order was also passed according tolaw and we could find no mandatory violations in the detentionorder. Therefore, the decision cited by the learned counselappearing for the petitioner is not applicable to the facts andcircumstances of the instant case. 7. A copy of the accident register available at Page 100 ofthe typed set shows that the defacto complainant was sent tohospital on 12.07.2008 at 11.30a.m. and the Doctor found variousbleeding injuries as stated below:i) cut injury 10 X ¼ X ¼ in right fore armii) Injury 10 X ¼ X ¼ left back 8.As stated by the detaining authority, it is seen thatsufficient supporting materials have been placed before thedetaining authority, for having subjective satisfaction while https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ passing the order of detention. It is not in dispute that copiesof all the relied on documents and the translated copies in Tamil,language known to the detenu, were furnished to him. 9. On perusal of the impugned order and the materialsavailable on record, we are of the view that there is no delay inpassing the order. On the date of the detention order, there isa valid remand and the copy of the same was also furnished to thedetenu. Hence, we are of the considered view that in the order ofdetention, there is no illegality or irregularity leading tomiscarriage of justice, so as to warrant this Court to interferewith the impugned order, passed by the detaining authority.10.Under such circumstances, this Habeas Corpus Petitionfails and the same is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, thispetition is dismissed.SmiSd/Asst.Registrar/true copy/Sub Asst.RegistrarTo1. The Secretary to Government. State of Tamil Nadu Home Prohibition and Excise Department, Fort St. George, Chennai – 600 009.2. The Commissioner of Police Chennai City,Egmore, Chennai- 600 008. 3. The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Chennai.4. The Superintendent, Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai.5. The Joint Secretary to Government Public (Law and order) Department, Fort St George, Chennai 9. MBS(CO) SR/20.1.2009 Order in H.C.P.No.1622 of 2008