Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 1, Cited by 0]

Madras High Court

Swetha vs District Collector & District ... on 3 November, 2020

Bench: M.M.Sundresh, D.Krishnakumar

                                                                              HCP No.1074 of 2020

                                    IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

                                                DATED: 03.11.2020

                                                        Coram

                                       The Hon'ble Mr. Justice M.M.SUNDRESH
                                                           and
                                      The Hon'ble Mr. Justice D.KRISHNAKUMAR

                                             H.C.P.No.1074 of 2020

                      Swetha                                           ... Petitioner

                                                         vs.

                      1.District Collector & District Magistrate
                        Office of the District Collector Krishnagiri Town
                           & District.

                      2.The Additional Chief Secretary
                        Home, Prohibition and Excise Department,
                        Govt. of Tamil Nadu, Secretariat,
                        Fort St.George,
                        Chennai – 09.

                      3.The Superintendent of Police,
                        Office of the Superintendent of Police,
                        Krishnagiri Town & District

                      4.The Deputy Superintendent of Police,
                        Thenkanikottai Range,
                        Uddanapallai Police Station,
                        Krishnagiri District.

                      5.The Superintendent of Prison,
                        Central Prison, Salem,
                        Hasthampatti, Salem – 636 007.                      ... Respondents




                      Page 1 of 5


http://www.judis.nic.in
                                                                           HCP No.1074 of 2020

                             Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to

                      issue a writ of Habeas Corpus calling for the records in S.C.No.02/2020

                      on the file of the first respondent quash the order of detention dated

                      31.01.2020 and direct the production of the detenu detained in Central

                      Prison Salem under Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of

                      Bootleggers, Cyber Law Offenders, Drug Offenders, Forest Offenders,

                      Sand Offenders, Slum Grabbers and Video Pirates Act (Act 14 of 1982)

                      before this Court and set the detenu Ramu, son of Muniraj, at liberty.




                                       For Petitioner    : Mr.R.John Sathyan

                                       For Respondents       Mr.R.Prathap Kumar,
                                                         :
                                                             Addl. Public Prosecutor
                                                         ORDER

[Order of the Court was made by M.M.SUNDRESH, J.] The petitioner is the wife of Ramu, son of Muniraj, who is the detenu. The detenu has been detained by the first respondent by his order in S.C.No.02/2020, dated 31.01.2020, holding him to be a "GOONDA", as contemplated under Section 2(f) of Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982. The said order is under challenge in this Habeas Corpus Petition.

Page 2 of 5

http://www.judis.nic.in HCP No.1074 of 2020

2. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents and we have also perused the records including the counter affidavit carefully.

3.Though learned counsel for the petitioner has raised several other grounds to assail the order of detention, he has mainly focused his argument on the ground that the detaining authority, while detaining the detenu, has not furnished the legible copies of the documents relied on by him. This deprived the detenu from making effective representation. Therefore, on this sole ground, the detention order is liable to be quashed.

4.On consideration of the submissions made on either side and upon perusal of the documents available on record, especially the seizure mahazar pertaining to the ground case at Page No.96 of the booklet, it is clear that the detaining authority, by providing illegible copies of the documents, has taken away the rights of detenu to effectively defend himself against his detention. Thus the impugned detention order is liable to be set aside on this ground.

Page 3 of 5

http://www.judis.nic.in HCP No.1074 of 2020

5. In the result, the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and the order of detention in S.C.No.02/2020, dated 31.01.2020 passed by the first respondent is set aside. The detenu, namely, Ramu, son of Muniraj, is directed to be released forthwith unless his detention is required in connection with any other case.

(M.M.S.,J.) (D.K.K.,J.) 03.11.2020 Index: Yes/No mmi/ssm To

1.District Collector & District Magistrate Office of the District Collector Krishnagiri Town & District.

2.The Additional Chief Secretary Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Govt. of Tamil Nadu, Secretariat, Fort St.George, Chennai – 09.

3.The Superintendent of Police, Office of the Superintendent of Police, Krishnagiri Town & District

4.The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Thenkanikottai Range, Uddanapallai Police Station, Krishnagiri District.

5.The Superintendent of Prison, Central Prison, Salem, Hasthampatti, Salem – 636 007.

6.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.

Page 4 of 5

http://www.judis.nic.in HCP No.1074 of 2020 M.M.SUNDRESH, J.

and D.KRISHNAKUMAR, J.

mmi/ssm H.C.P. No.1074 of 2020 03.11.2020 Page 5 of 5 http://www.judis.nic.in