IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Dated: 14/06/2005
Coram
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice P.SATHASIVAM
and
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice AR.RAMALINGAM
Habeas Corpus Petition No.l01 of 2005
Savithri ... Petitioner
-Vs-
1. The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep.
by its Secretary to Government,
Prohibition and Excise Department,
Fort St. George,
Chennai-9.
2. The District Magistrate and
The District Collector,
Coimbatore District. ... Respondents
For Petitioner : Mrs.R.Subadra Devi
For Respondents : Mr.Abudu Kumar Rajarathinam,
Govt. Advocate (Crl. Side)
Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the
issuance of Writ of Habeas Corpus to call for the entire records leading to
the detention of the petitioners son namely Bharathi Mohan, S/o. Kalimuthu
detained under Act 14/82, vide detention order dated 12.12.20 04 on the file
of the 2nd respondent herein made in Cr.M.P. No.27/G/2 004/E4, quash the same
and consequently to direct the respondents herein to produce the body and
person of the detenu before this Honble Court and thereafter set him at
liberty from the Central Prison, Coimbatore.
:O R D E R
(Order of the Court was made by P.SATHASIVAM, J.)
The mother of the detenu challenges the detention order dated
12.12.2004 detaining her son Bharathi Mohan as Goonda under Section 3(2) of
the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drug
Offenders, Forest Offenders, Goondas, oral Traffic Offenders, Slum Grabbers
and Video Pirates Act, 1982 (Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 198 2).
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner, after taking us through the
grounds of detention and all other connected materials, has raised the
following contentions:-
(i) Since the detenu is not conversant with English language, in the
absence of supply of translated version of the remand extension order, the
impugned detention is liable to be quashed.
(ii) Even though the Detaining Authority has referred to the
confession statements of three accused, the same were not furnished to him.
3. Coming to the first contention, learned Government Advocate has
brought to our notice that based on the representation of the detenu, Tamil
version of the remand extension order was supplied to the detenu and the same
was acknowledged by him on 26.01.2005. In such circumstances, the first
contention is liable to be rejected.
2. Coming to the second contention, as rightly pointed out by the
learned Government Advocate, a perusal of paragraph No.3 (ii) of the grounds
of detention shows that the reference made with regard to the confession
statements, said to have been made by three accused, is only a part of
reference and they were not relied on by the Detaining Authority. Inasmuch as
the Detaining Authority, while narrating the occurrence, has only referred to
the confession statement of other accused, we are satisfied that even in the
absence of supply of copy of the same, the Detaining Authority cannot be
faulted with. Accordingly, we reject the said contention also.
3. In the light of what is stated above, there is no valid ground for
interference. Accordingly, the Habeas Corpus Petition is dismissed.
Index: yes
Internet: yes
JI.
To
1. State of Tamil Nadu, rep. by its Secretary to Government, Prohibition
and Excise Department, Fort St. George, Chennai 600 009.
2. The District Magistrate and the District Collector,
Coimbatore District.
3. The Superintendent, Central Prison, Coimbatore.
(In duplicate for communication to detenu)
4. The Joint Secretary to Government, Public (Law and Order)
Fort St. George, Chennai-9.
5. The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.