IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED:- 16.08.2010
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M. CHOCKALINGAM
AND
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M. SATHYANARAYANAN
H.C.P. No.225 of 2010
S. Amitha Beevi ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.The State of Tamil Nadu,
rep. by its Secretary to Government,
Home, Prohibition and
Excise Department.,
Secretariat,
Chennai 600 009.
2. The Commissioner of Police,
Chennai Police, Egmore,
Chennai 600 008. ... Respondents
Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking to issue a writ of Habeas Corpus, to call for the records relating to the order dated 28.1.2010 made in order No.23/2010 issued by the second respondent and quash the same and produce the detenu, viz. Sirajudeen son of Salavudeen, aged 30 years, now detained at Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai before this Court and set him at liberty.
For Petitioner : Mr. S. Senthilvel
For Respondents : Mr. Babu Muthumeeran,
Additional Public Prosecutor
O R D E R
(Order of the Court was made by M. CHOCKALINGAM,J)
Challenge is made to an order of detention dated 28.1.2010 in No.23/2010 passed by the second respondent, whereby one Sirajudeen, the husband of the petitioner was ordered to be detained under the provisions of Section 2(j) of the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982, after branding him as “Video Pirate”
2. All the materials are looked into in particular the order under challenge. The Court heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as the learned counsel appearing for the State.
3. It is not in controversy that pursuant to the recommendation made by the sponsoring Authority that the detenu is involved in Video Piracy and a case was registered by the Inspector of Police, Video Piracy Cell, Crime Branch, CID I Unit, Chennai in Crime No.8 of 2010 for the offences under Sections 51 read with 63, 52(A), 68(A) of Copyright Act, 1957 and 292(A) of the Indian Penal Code for the incident that had taken place on 12.01.2010 and on scrutiny of materials, the detaining Authority has made the order of detention under challenge after recording its subjective satisfaction that the activities of the detenu were prejudicial to the maintenance of public order.
4. Advancing arguments on behalf of the petitioner, learned counsel would submit that it is pointed out in the order that the police party seized eleven items under the cover of search slips as enumerated in page No.3 of the order under challenge, but no copy of either search slip or recovery mahazar was served upon the detenu and thus, the same itself would cause prejudice to the detenu and hence the order of detention under challenge has got to be set aside.
5. This Court heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor on the above contentions and paid its anxious consideration on the submissions made.
6. After considering the submissions made by either side, the Court is of the considered view that though the ground is simple, it is strong enough to upset the order. Admittedly, the order under challenge came to be passed by the Detaining authority after recording its subjective satisfaction that the detenu is a Video Pirate. Only one incident is actually mentioned therein, which is registered in Crime No.8 of 2010 for the occurrence that had taken place on 12.01.2010.
7. A perusal of the order would indicate that number of DVDs and Cds, which were actually shown as eleven items in page No.3 of the order of detention, were recovered from the detenu under the search slips. But, nothing is found to indicate that the copies of the search slips were served upon the detenu. Under such circumstances, the non supply of the alleged slips or the recovery mahazar on the detenu would certainly cause prejudice to his rights. Added further, it should have been a relied upon document for recording subjective satisfaction. Under the circumstances, law would warrant that copy of the same should have been served upon the detenu, but the same is not done, which would be suffice to set aside the detention order.
8. Accordingly, the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed, setting aside the detention order passed by the second respondent in No.23/2010 dated 28.01.2010. The detenu, namely, Sirajudeen, who is now confined at Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai is directed to be set at liberty forthwith unless his presence is required in connection with any other case.
ssa.
To
1.The Secretary to Government,
The State of Tamil Nadu,
Home, Prohibition and
Excise Department.,
Secretariat,
Chennai 600 009.
2. The Commissioner of Police,
Chennai Police, Egmore,
Chennai 600 008