IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 09.01.2008
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.D.DINAKARAN
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.REGUPATHI
H.C.P.No.1735 of 2007
S. Raja .. Petitioner
Vs.
1. The State of Tamilnadu
rep. by its Secretary to Government
Prohibition and Excise Department
Fort St.George, Chennai 600 009.
2. The District Collector
and District Magistrate
Krishnagiri District
Krishnagiri. .. Respondents
PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue Habeas Corpus as stated therein.
For Petitioner : Mrs.R.Subadra Devi
For Respondents : Mr.N.R.Elango
Addl. Public Prosecutor
O R D E R
(Order of the Court was made by P.D.DINAKARAN,J.)
The second respondent herein clamped an order of detention as against the detenu Palani, son of the petitioner, as the said authority arrived at the subjective satisfaction that the detenu is a Goonda and he has to be detained under Section 3(1) of the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Forest Officers, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders, Sand Offenders, Slum Grabbers and Video Pirates Act, 1982 (Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982).
2.1. The order of detention dated 2.9.2007 was passed on the basis of ground case in Crime No.734 of 2007 for alleged commission of offences under Sections 392 and 506(ii) IPC, complaint of which was lodged by one Balan. According to him, on 30.7.2007 at about 6.00 a.m., while he was proceeding to bus stand at the junction of Taluk Office Road and Nethaji Road, the detenu wrongfully restrained him and threatened him to hand over the gold chain wearing in his neck. When the complainant raised hue and cry, the detenu forcibly snatched the gold chain weighing about 4 sovereigns and also threatened the public who came for his rescue that they would be killed and made them to run on all sides seeking shelter resulting in traffic dislocation. Based on the complaint given by him a case, as stated above, was registered and the detenu was arrested.
2.2. Apart from the above, the detaining authority also took note of the eleven adverse cases viz., Crime Nos.348/2004, 645/2005, 313/2006, 640/2006, 17/2007, 18/2007 and 725/2007 on the file of Hosur Town Police Station and Crime Nos.164/2004, 191/2004, 208/2004 and 211/2004 on the file of Hudco Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 457, 380, 379 and 511 IPC.
2.3. The detaining authority, having satisfied that the detenu is indulging in activities which are prejudicial to maintenance of public order, passed the impugned order.
3. Challenging the abovesaid detention, the father of the detenu has come forward with the present Habeas Corpus Petition seeking a writ of habeas corpus to call for the records leading to the detention of the detenu vide detention order dated 2.9.2007 on the file of the second respondent made in S.C.No.24 of 2007, to quash the same and to consequently direct the respondents herein to produce the body and person of the detenu before this Court and to set him at liberty from the Central Prison, Salem.
4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.N.R.Elango, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondents.
5. The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that even though in paragraph (3) of the grounds of detention dated 2.9.2007, it is stated that the detenu was given a personal hearing, no such personal enquiry was conducted, nor the report of personal hearing was furnished to the detenu and therefore, the order of detention is vitiated.
6. We have perused the materials available on record. While passing the detention order, the detaining authority observed that from the materials placed before it and from the personal hearing, it was satisfied that the detenu is a Goonda and he was habitually committing crimes and thereby acted in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order and public health. Having observed that a personal hearing was given to the detenu and having relied on such personal hearing while passing the order of detention, the detaining authority ought to have furnished a copy of the report of the personal hearing to the detenu. Concededly, no such report of the personal hearing was furnished to the detenu, nor a personal hearing was given to the detenu.
For the reasons aforesaid, the order of detention is vitiated and therefore, the petition must succeed and the same is ordered as prayed for. The detention order dated 2.9.2007 is set aside. The detenu is directed to be set at liberty forthwith unless his custody is required in connection with any other case.
ATR
To:
1. The Secretary to Government
State of Tamilnadu
Prohibition and Excise Department
Fort St.George, Chennai 9.
2. The District Collector
and District Magistrate
Krishnagiri District
Krishnagiri.
3. The Superintendent
Central Prison
Salem.
4. The Public Prosecutor
High Court,
Madras.