Maheswari v. State Of Tamil Nadu Represented
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 17.07.2023
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.SUNDAR AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SAKTHIVEL H.C.P.NO.348 OF 2023 Maheswari .. Petitioner Vs 1.State of Tamil Nadu Rep. By Secretary to Government Home, Prohibition and Excise Department Fort St. George, Chennai - 600 009.
2.The Commissioner of Police Greater Chennai.
3.The Superintendent of Prison Central Prison Puzhal, Chennai.
4.State Rep. By Inspector of Police P-6, Kodungaiyur Police Station, Chennai.
.. Respondents PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a Writ of Habeas Corpus, calling for the records of the 1/10
2nd respondent pertaining to the order made in No.495/BCDFGISSSV/2022 dated 30.12.2022 in detaining the detenu under the Tamilnadu Act 14/1982 as a Goonda and quash the same and direct the respondents to produce the detenu, namely Paramasivam @ Parma (detenu) aged about 35 years, son of Kuppan who is detained at the Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai before this Court and set him at liberty.
For Petitioner :
Mr.A.Venkateswara Babu for Mr.P.Sridhar For Respondents :
Mr.E.Raj Thilak Additional Public Prosecutor
ORDER
[Order of the Court was made by M.SUNDAR, J.] Captioned 'Habeas Corpus Petition' ['HCP' for the sake of brevity] has been filed by wife of detenu assailing a 'preventive detention order dated 30.12.2022 bearing reference No.495/BCDFGISSSV/2022' [hereinafter 'impugned detention order' for the sake of convenience and brevity]. To be noted, fourth respondent is the sponsoring authority and second respondent is the detaining authority as impugned detention order has been made by second respondent.
2/10
2.Impugned detention order has been made under 'The Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Cyber law offenders, Drug-offenders, Forest-offenders, Goondas, Immoral traffic offenders, Sandoffenders, Sexual-offenders, Slum-grabbers and Video Pirates Act, 1982 (Tamil Nadu Act No.14 of 1982)' [hereinafter 'Act 14 of 1982' for the sake of convenience and clarity] on the premise that the detenu is a 'Goonda' within the meaning of Section 2(f) of Act 14 of 1982. 3.There are three adverse cases and one ground case. The ground case which constitutes substantial part of substratum of the impugned preventive detention order is Crime No.847 of 2022 on the file of P-6 Kodungaiyur Police Station for alleged offences under Sections 341, 294(b), 336, 427, 397 and 506(ii) of 'The Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Act 45 of 1860)' ['IPC' for brevity]. Owing to the nature of the challenge to the impugned detention order, it is not necessary to delve into the factual matrix or be detained further by facts.
3/10
4.Mr.A.Venkateswara Babu, learned counsel representing Mr.P.Sridhar, learned counsel on record for petitioner and Mr.E.Raj Thilak, learned State Additional Public Prosecutor for all respondents are before us. 5.In the final hearing Board, Mr.A.Venkateswara Babu, learned counsel representing the learned counsel on record for the petitioner projected his argument qua his campaign against the impugned preventive detention order on one point though several grounds have been raised /urged in the support affidavit. The one point that was canvassed in the final hearing Board turns on drastic difference in dates in the English and Tamil versions of remand orders at pages 83 and 84 of the grounds booklet served on the detenu. A scanned reproduction of these two pages is as follows: 4/10
5/10
6/10
6.Learned counsel points out that 15.12.2022 date in the English order is shown as 14.12.2022 in the Tamil translation of the remand order. 7.Learned counsel submitted that the aforementioned confusion is so drastic that it can baffle anybody. The detenu being baffled on this aspect of the matter has put him under a huge disadvantage in making an effective representation against impugned preventive detention order. 8.As the aforesaid point turns heavily on records, learned Prosecutor really has little say i.e., no say. 9.In the light of the narrative thus far, this Bench has no difficulty in accepting the argument that the detenu's sacrosanct right to make an effective representation against the impugned preventive detention order has been impaired. To be noted, this sacrosanct / sanctus right is a constitutional safeguard ingrained in Article 22(5) of Constitution of India. The sequitur is impugned preventive detention order deserves to be dislodged as it is vitiated by infraction of Article 22(5) of Constitution of India. 7/10
10.Ergo, captioned HCP is allowed. Impugned detention order dated 30.12.2022 bearing reference Memo No.495/BCDFGISSSV/2022 made by the second respondent is set aside and the detenu Thiru.Paramasivam @ Parma, aged 35 years, son of Thiru. Kuppan, is directed to be set at liberty forthwith, if not required in connection with any other case / cases. There shall be no order as to costs. (M.S., J.) (R.S.V., J.) 17.07.2023 Index : Yes TK P.S: Registry to forthwith communicate this order to Jail authorities in Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai.
8/10
To 1.The Secretary to Government Home, Prohibition and Excise Department Fort St. George, Chennai - 600 009.
2.The Commissioner of Police Greater Chennai.
3.The Superintendent of Prison Central Prison Puzhal, Chennai.
4.The Inspector of Police P-6, Kodungaiyur Police Station, Chennai.
5.The Public Prosecutor High Court of Madras.
9/10
M.SUNDAR, J.
AND R.SAKTHIVEL, J.
TK H.C.P.NO.348 OF 2023 17.07.2023 10/10