Revathi v. Government Of Tamilnadu Rep.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 15.07.2015 C O R A M THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE S.TAMILVANAN and THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.SELVAM H.C.P.No.1035 of 2015 Revathi ...
Petitioner Vs 1.Government of Tamil Nadu, rep. by its Principal Secretary, Home, Prohibition and Excise (XVI) Department Fort St George, Chennai 600 009.
2.The District Magistrate and District Collector, Namakkal District.
...
Respondents Habeas Corpus Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a writ of Habeas Corpus to call for the records in C.M.P.No.32/Goonda/2014/M1 dated 03.12.2014 on the file of the second respondent herein and quash the same and direct the respondents herein to produce the body of the petitioner's husband Dhakshinamoorthy, son of Duraisamy Pillai, aged 43 years, now confined in Central Prison, Salem before this Court and set him at liberty.
For Petitioner :
Mr.R.Subhadradevi For Respondents :
Mr.M.Maharaja Addl. Public Prosecutor
O R D E R
(Order of the Court was made by S.Tamilvanan,J.) Challenge is made to the order of detention passed by the second respondent in C.M.P.No.32/Goonda/2014/M1, dated 03.12.2014 , whereby the detenu/the husband of the petitioner herein, by name, Dhakshinamoorthy, Son of Duraisamy Pillai, male, aged about 43 years, was ordered to be detained under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Cyber Law Offenders, 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".
2.Though many grounds have been raised in the petition, Mrs.R.Subhadra Devi, the learned counsel for the petitioner has assailed the impugned detention order only on the ground of nonsupply of copy of the bail application and bail order in the similar case, referred to in the grounds of detention, for arriving at the subjective satisfaction that there is likelihood of the detenu coming out on bail, which have affected the constitutional right of making an effective and purposeful representation to the authorities concerned, thereby vitiating the detention.
3.Per contra, Mr.M.Maharaja, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that the impugned detention order has been passed on cogent and sufficient materials and there is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned order of detention. However, he submitted that the copy of bail application and bail order in the similar case, referred to in the grounds of detention were not supplied to the detenu.
4.We have given our careful and anxious consideration to the rival submissions put forward by the learned counsel on either side and thoroughly scanned through the impugned detention order and the entire materials available on record.
5.It is seen from paragraph No.4 of the Grounds of Detention that in similar case the accused was granted bail by the Judicial Magistrate No.I, Namakkal in Crl.M.P.No.4470 of 2014 in respect of Cr.No.483/2014 for the offence registered under section 392 r/w 506(ii) IPC on the file of Namakkal Police Station. On a perusal of the Paper Book furnished by the Prosecution, it is seen that it does not contain any of the document, viz., the bail application and the bail order, in respect of the similar case. The said bail application and the bail order filed in similar case were the documents relied upon by the Detaining Authority to come to a subjective satisfaction that the detenu was likely to be released on bail.
Admittedly, such documents have not been supplied to the detenu, as they did not form part of the Paper Book furnished by the Prosecution. Therefore, the non-supply of the copy of the bail application and the bail order and other documents in similar case to the detenu would vitiate the impugned detention order. 6.The Honourable Supreme Court in M.Ahamed Kutty Vs. Union of India and another (1990-2-SCC-1) has observed thus:- "7. Considering the facts in the instant case, the bail applications and the bail order were vital materials for consideration.
documents supplied to the detenu with the grounds of detention and without them the grounds themselves could not be said to have been complete. We have, therefore, no alternative but to hold that it amounted to denial of the detenu's right to make an effective representation and that it resulted in violation of Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India rendering the continued detention of the detenu illegal and entitling the detenu to be set at liberty in this case." (Emphasis added)."
7. This Court in Jarinabegam Vs. State of Tamil Nadu by Secretary to Government, Prohibition and Exercise Department, Chennai and another (2007-1-MLJ-Crl-18) relying upon the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court cited supra has held that non-supply of the copy of the bail applications in similar cases to the detenu has the effect of vitiating the order or detention.
8. As already analysed by us, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, non-supply of the documents, viz., the bail application and the bail order in similar case to the detenu has the effect of vitiating the impugned detention order. Further, due to non-supply of such vital documents, the detenu has lost his valuable right to make an effective representation to the authorities concerned.
9. In the light of the above said principles laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court and for the reasons stated above, the impugned order of detention is vitiated and the same is liable to be quashed.
10. In the result, this Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed. The impugned detention order is set aside. The detenu is directed to be released forthwith, unless his presence is required in connection with any other case.
Sd/- Asst.Registrar (CS IV ) /true copy/ Sub Asst. Registrar cla/msk
To
1. The Principal Secretary, Government of Tamil Nadu, Home, Prohibition and Excise (XVI) Department Fort St. George, Chennai 600 009.
2. The District Magistrate and District Collector, Namakkal District.
3. The Superintendent, Central Prison, Salem.
4.Joint Secretary to Government Public (Law & Order) Fort St.George,Chennai-600 009.
5.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Chennai.
H.C.P.No.1035 of 2015 aa04/08/2015