Kanniyammal, Aged 38 Years, v. The Secretary To The Govt.,
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED 06.07.2017
CORAM
THE HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE A.SELVAM and THE HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE P.KALAIYARASAN H.C.P.No.58 of 2017 Kanniyammal ... Petitioner/ Mother of the detenu Vs
1. The Secretary to the Government, Home Prohibition and Excise Department, Secretariat, Chennai - 600 009.
2. The Commissioner of Police, Chennai Police, Office of the Commissioner of Police, (Goondas Section), Vepery, Chennai - 600 007.
... Respondents Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS, to call for the records of the detention order made in Detention Order dated 17.11.2016 in Memo No.1161/BCDFGISSSV/2016 passed by the Commissioner of Police, Chennai Police (Goondas Section), Veppery, Chennai - 600 007, the second respondent herein and set aside the same and direct the respondent to produce the detenu confined in Central Prison, Puzhal before this Court and set the detenu Rajkumar, S/o.Gopi, aged about 23 years at liberty forthwith.
For Petitioner : Mr.S.Madhusudanan For Respondents : Mr.V.M.R.Rajentren Additional Public Prosecutor
O R D E R
[Order of the Court was made by A.SELVAM, J.] This Habeas Corpus Petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to call for records
relating to the Detention Order No.1161/BDFGISSSV/2016 dated 17.11.2016 by the Detaining Authority against the detenu by name, Rajkumar, S/o.Gopi, residing at No.38-A/24, 5th Street, Padi Pudunagar, Chennai - 600 101 and quash the same.
2. The Inspector of Police, V-3, J.J.Nagar Police Station, as Sponsoring Authority, has submitted an affidavit to the Detaining Authority, wherein, it is averred that the detenu has involved in the following adverse cases:- i. V-3, J.J.Nagar Police Station, Crime No.564/2016, registered under Sections 341, 294(b), 323, 392 and 506(ii) of Indian Penal Code;
ii.V-3, J.J.Nagar Police Station, Crime No.601/2016, registered under Section 379 of Indian Penal Code; and iii.G-7, Chetpet Police Station, Crime No.1008/2016, registered under Section 341, 324, 307 of Indian Penal Code r/w. Section 31 of TNPPDL Act.
3. Further, it is averred in the affidavit that on 28.09.2016, one Gopuraj, S/o.Venkatakrishnan, as defacto complainant, has given a complaint against the detenu in V-3, J.J.Nagar Police Station and the same has been registered in Crime No.592/2016 under Sections 341, 294(b), 323, 397, 336 and 506(ii) of Indian Penal Code and ultimately, requested the Detaining Authority to invoke Act 14 of 1982 against the detenu.
4. The Detaining Authority, after considering the averments made in the affidavit and other connected materials, has derived a subjective satisfaction to the effect that the detenu is a habitual offender and ultimately, branded him as goonda by way of passing the impugned Detention Order and in order to quash the same, the present petition has been filed by the mother of the detenu as petitioner.
5. On the side of the respondents, a counter has been filed, wherein, it is averred to the effect that most of the averments made in the affidavit are false and the Sponsoring Authority has submitted all the particulars to the Detaining Authority and the Detaining Authority after considering the averments made in the affidavit and other connected documents, has rightly derived a subjective satisfaction to the effect that the detenu is a habitual offender and ultimately, branded him as goonda by way of passing the impugned detention order and therefore, the impugned detention order does not call for any interference and the petition deserves to be dismissed.
6. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has contended to the effect that a representation has been given, but the same has not been disposed of without delay and therefore, the Detention Order in question is liable to be quashed.
7. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor has contended that the representation submitted on the side of the detenu has been duly disposed of without delay and therefore, the present petition deserves to be dismissed.
8. On the side of the respondents, a proforma has been submitted, wherein, it has been clearly stated that in between column Nos.7 and 9, 3 clear working days are available and in between column Nos.12 and 13, 12 clear working days are available and no explanation has been given on the side of the respondents with regard to such delay and that the same would affect the rights of the detenu guaranteed under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India.
9. In fine, this Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and the Detention Order dated 17.11.2016 passed in Detention Order No.1161/BCDFGISSSV/2016 by the second respondent against the detenu by name, Rajkumar, S/o.Gopi, residing at No.38-A/24, 5th Street, Padi Pudunagar, Chennai - 600 101 is quashed and the detenu is set at liberty forthwith unless he is required to be incarcerated in any other case.
Sd/- Assistant Registrar(CS VIII) //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar gpa To
1. The Secretary to the Government, Home Prohibition and Excise Department, Secretariat Chennai - 600 009
2. The Commissioner of Police Chennai Police Office of the Commissioner of Police (Goondas Section) Vepery Chennai - 600 007
3.The Joint Secretary, Public (Law & Order) Secretariat, Chennai-9.
4.The Superintendent, Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai.
(In duplicate for communication to the detenu)
5. The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.
H.C.P.No.58 of 2017 VGI(CO) VR(06/07/2017)