Daisey v. State of Tamil Nadu

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 6.2.2008CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.D.DINAKARAN ANDTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.REGUPATHIH.C.P.No.426 of 2007Daisey.. PetitionerVs1. State of Tamil Nadu rep. by its Secretary Department of Prohibition & Excise Fort St. George, Chennai 600 009.2. The Commissioner of Police Greater Chennai Egmore, Chennai – 8... RespondentsPetition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of Indiafor issue of Writ of Habeas Corpus as stated therein.For Petitioner:Mr.R.SankarasubbuFor Respondents:Mr.N.R.ElangoAdditional Public ProsecutorO R D E R(Order of the Court was made by P.D.DINAKARAN,J.)The second respondent herein clamped an order of detention asagainst the husband of the petitioner viz., Bishop S.Anandaraj, sonof Sigamani, as the said authority arrived at the subjectivesatisfaction that the said detenu is a Goonda and he has to bedetained under Section 3(1) of the Tamil Nadu Prevention of DangerousActivities of Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Forest Officers, Goondas,Immoral Traffic Offenders, Sand Offenders, Slum Grabbers and VideoPirates Act, 1982 (Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982).2. Challenging the abovesaid detention, the petitioner hascome forward with the present Habeas Corpus Petition seeking a writof habeas corpus to call for the records in No.69/2007 dated https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

26.2.2007 on the file of the second respondent, quash the same asillegal and to direct the respondents to produce the detenu BishopS.Anandaraj, son of Sigamani, now detained at Central Prison, Puzhal,Chennai before this Court and to set him at liberty.3.1. According to the prosecution, the detenu and his associatescheated number of persons under the guise of offering constructionwork and collected huge money to the tune of Rs.20 Crores as EMD andalso threatened them with dire consequences. Prosecution case is asfollows :-3.2. The detenu Bishop S.Anandaraj, with an alleged mission toconstruct dwelling houses for the poor public in all States in Indiaon free of cost by getting foreign aides, formed a Trust in the nameof "M/s. Molin Mission Assembly of Miracle Church" along with hisassociates. The detenu is the Founder of the Trust and one SureshKumar, adopted son of the detenu, is the Secretary of the Trust.One Sakthi @ Sakthivel is the Engineer of the Trust and V.Krishnan,A.Kumar and Paul Mayan are the Agents of the Trust. The modusoperandi of the detenu and his associates was to advertise in majordailies about their object of constructing dwelling houses for thepoor public free of cost using foreign aids. The gullible builders,lured by the advertisement, approached the detenu and his associatesand they were impressed upon that foreign aid is going to be pumpedin the project and poor people will be offered dwelling houses freeof cost. The detenu and his men churned out this story to everybuilder, who fell prey. As Lump sum security deposit, every builderwas forced to part with a sizable amount of money, running intoseveral lakhs of rupees. When some of the builders confronted thedetenu, they were given cheques, which when deposited bounced back.After their patience ran out, other builders approached the detenuand his associates only to be rebuked. Complaints were filed by somany contractors all over the state of Tamil Nadu and cases wereregistered in Crime Nos.72/2006, 272/2006, 297/2006, 302/2006,418/2006, 419/2006 and 420/2006 on the file of Mamallapuram PoliceStation, Chennai City CCB X Crime Nos.405/2006 and 487/2006, and DCBRamnad District Crime Nos.1/2006 and 40/2006 for the offences underSections 420, 406 IPC r/w 34 IPC IPC. Since number of persons werecheated not only in the State of Tamil Nadu but also from theneighbouring States, the Director General of Police transferred thefurther investigation of all the cases to Crime Branch CID forspecialized investigation and accordingly, Mr.S.Subbiah, DeputySuperintendent of Police, CB CID, Kancheepuram Range took up thecases for investigation. He has received 241 petitions against thedetenu and his associates. The Inspector of Police, CBCIDKancheepuram Range arrested the detenu on 19.l2.2006 and recorded hisconfession statement. Based on the confession given by the detenu,number of cars, agreements and documents running to several lakhswere recovered. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

3.3. According to the Detaining Authority, the detenu ishabitually committing crimes and has cheated 241 persons under theguise of offering construction work by abusing and misusing religiousposition as Bishop and collected huge money to the tune of Rs.20Crores as Earnest Money Deposit. He has thus hurt the religioussentiments of the people also and acted in a manner prejudicial tothe maintenance of public order.3.4. The detaining authority, having satisfied that there iscompelling necessity to detain the detenu in order to prevent himfrom indulging in activities which are prejudicial to maintenance ofpublic order, passed the impugned order.4. The learned counsel for the petitioner challenges theimpugned order of detention on the grounds that(i) defective translation of the remand order as to thestatement that he was beaten up by the police; and(ii) non application of mind on the part of the Government innot considering the specific plea made by the detenu that he wasbeaten up by the police, while passing the order of rejection.5.1. The remand order dated 3.8.2006 passed by the JudicialMagistrate, Thirukalukundram, reads hereunder:"Accused produced at 5.00 p.m. ground of arrest andfree legal aid explained. Accused stated that he wasbeating by the police. No external injury found on hisbody. Remanded till 17.8.2006."On the other hand, the translated copy of the said order is stated ashereunder:"vjphp gp/g/ 05.00 kzpf;F M$h; gLj;jg;gl;L ifJ gw;wpa[k; ,ytrrl;l cjtp gw;wpa[k; bjhptpf;fg;gl;lJ/ vjphpapd; clypy; fhak; VJk; ,y;iy/ 17/08/2006 tiu ePjpkd;w fhtypy; itf;fg;gl;lJ/"5.2. A plain reading between the original order of remand andthe vernacular translation of the remand order makes a widedifference in the sense that when the original order speaks to theeffect that the accused had stated that he was beating (beaten) bythe police, which would mean that he was beaten by the police, in thevernacular language found at page 91, it was stated that no externalinjury was found on his body. i.e. "vjphpapd; clypy; fhak; VJk; ,y;iy/"Therefore, in our considered opinion, the impugned order of detentionsuffers from incorrect translation of the remand order dated 3.8.2006.5.3. With regard to the second ground, it is true that thedetenu made a representation to the Government dated 3.4.2007 makinga specific plea that he was beaten by the police. The Government,while disposing of the said representation dated 3.4.2007 by https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ proceedings dated 19.4.2007, without taking note of the originalorder of remand dated 3.8.2006 found at page 89, has only taken noteof the Tamil version found at page 91 that the accused did not makeany complaint against the police when he was produced before theJudicial Magistrate for remand. Therefore, failure to consider theoriginal order of remand dated 3.8.2006, while disposing of therepresentation of the detenu dated 3.4.2007, reflects non applicationof mind on the part of the Government. We are, therefore, satisfied that the impugned order ofdetention is vitiated on both the grounds. Accordingly, the order ofdetention dated 26.2.2007 is set aside and the habeas corpus petitionis allowed. The detenu Bishop S.Anandaraj is directed to be set atliberty forthwith unless his presence is required in connection withany other case.sd/-Asst.Registrar/true copy/Sub Asst.RegistrarATRTo:1. The Secretary State of Tamil Nadu Department of Prohibition & Excise Fort St. George, Chennai 600 009.2. The Commissioner of Police Greater Chennai, Egmore, Chennai – 8.3. The Superintendent, Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai.4. The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.5. The Joint Secretary to Government of Tamilnadu, Public (Law and Order) Department, Fort.St. George, Chennai-600 009.+1cc to Mr. R.Sankarasubbu, Advocate, SR.NO.6381H.C.P.No.426 of 2007RL[CO]gkg/22.2