IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 07.01.2008 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.D.DINAKARAN AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.REGUPATHI H.C.P.No.1386 of 2007 Siva @ Vijayaraghavan .. Petitioner Vs 1.State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by its Secretary to Govt., Prohibition and Excise Department, Fort St. George, Chennai-600 009. 2.The District Collector & District Magistrate, Tiruvannamalai District, Tiruvannamalai. .. Respondents Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issue of Writ of Habeas Corpus as stated therein. For Petitioner : Mr.C.C.Chellappan For Respondents: Mr.N.R.Elango Addl. Public Prosecutor O R D E R
(Made by P.D.DINAKARAN,J.)
The petitioner, who was incarcerated at Central Prison, Vellore, by order dated 18.8.2007 of the second respondent under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Forest Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders, Sand Offenders, Slum Grabbers and Video Pirates Act, 1982 (Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982) branding him as a Goonda, seeks a writ of Habeas Corpus to call for the records in connection with the said order of detention made in proceedings D.O.No.36/2007-C2, to quash the same and to direct the respondents to produce him before this Court and set at liberty.
2.1. On the basis of the complaint given by one Vijayakumar that on 9.7.2007 at about 9.30 hours, when he was proceeding on Thirukoilur Road, the detenu along with two others waylaid him and threatened at the point of knife to part with his money and that when he refused, the detenu and his associates forcibly took away Rs.500/- from his pocket and also threatened the public, who came for his rescue, with knives, iron road and also by hurling soda bottles against them, resulting in the terror and panic situation and also dislocation of traffic at the spot, a case was registered in Crime No.223 of 2007 for the offence under Section 392 IPC. During investigation, the detenu was arrested and later, sent to Court for judicial remand.
2.2.The Detaining Authority taking note of the above ground case as well as four adverse cases, viz. in Tiruvannamalai Taluk P.S. Cr.No.395/2006 for the offence under Section 302 IPC and in Tiruvannamalai East P.S. Cr.Nos.215/07, 216/07 and 217/07 for offences under Sections 379 and 387 IPC, and having arrived at the subjective satisfaction that there is compelling necessity to detain the detenu in order to prevent him from indulging in such activities which are prejudicial to the maintenance of public order, clamped the impugned detention order on the detenu.
3.The learned counsel for the petitioner, placing reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in POWNAMMAL v. STATE OF TAMIL NADU AND ANOTHER [A.I.R. 1999 SC 618], contends that the remand order or any other particulars pertaining to the remand of the detenu in the second adverse case in Crime No.215 of 2007 on the file of Tiruvannamalai East P.S., was not furnished to the detenu in spite of requesting for the same in his representation dated 3.9.2007, which has caused prejudice to the detenu to submit his effective representation objecting the order of detention and hence, the detention order vitiates on this ground.
4. We heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor on the above point, who concedes that no remand order with regard to the second adverse case has been furnished to the detenu.
5. In POWNAMMAL v. STATE OF TAMIL NADU, cited supra, where the Tamil version of the remand order, which is a relied upon document was not supplied to the detenu even though it was demanded by the detenu, the Apex Court held thus –
” 15. Adverting to the facts of this case, the appellant has made a representation for supply of Tamil version of the copy of order of remand and specifically stated that the detenue could not understand English language. Admittedly, Tamil version of order of remand was not furnished to her. A perusal of the grounds shows that the order of remand was relied upon by the second respondent to reach subjective satisfaction, so the detenue need not show that any prejudice was caused to her due to non-supply of the Tamil version of order of remand. Therefore, the High Court is not correct in holding that non-furnishing of the copy of the order of remand would not in any way prejudice the detenue.”
6.We have perused the materials available on record. In the case on hand, the detaining authority in the grounds of detention has stated that the detenu is in remand in connection with Crime Nos.223/07 (ground case), 215/2007, 216/2007 and 217/2007 (adverse cases), concededly, no remand particulars are available in the paper book furnished to the detenu with regard to the adverse case in Crime No.215/2007 to show that he is under valid judicial custody in the said case, which would obviously cause prejudice to the detenu to submit his effective representation objecting to the order of detention. Hence, applying the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in the Pownammal’s case, cited supra, the non-supply of essential document, viz. remand order in connection with Crime No.215/2007, rendered the detention illegal and hence, the petition must succeed on this ground.
In the result, the order of detention is set aside and the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed. The detenu is directed to be set at liberty forthwith unless his presence is required in connection with any other case.
(P.D.D.J.)(R.R.J.)
07.01.2008
Internet : Yes/No
sra
To
1. The Secretary to Government (Home),
Prohibition & Excise Department
Secretariat, Chennai 9.
2. The District Collector &
District Magistrate,
Tiruvannamalai District,
Tiruvannamalai.
3. The Superintendent
Central Prison, Vellore.
4. The Public Prosecutor
High Court, Madras.
P.D.DINAKARAN,J,
AND
R.REGUPATHI,J.
(sra)
H.C.P.No.1386 of 2007
07.01.2008