Suvitha v. The Secretary To Government
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 21.02.2023
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.SUNDAR and THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.NIRMAL KUMAR H.C.P.No.1437 of 2022 Mrs.Suvitha Wife of Mohanraj ..
Petitioner /Wife of Detenu Vs.
1.
The Secretary to Government Home, Prohibition Excise Department Fort St.George, Chennai - 600 009 2.
The Commissioner of Police Avadi City 3.
The Superintendent Central Prison - II, Puzhal, Chennai 4.
The Inspector of Police (Law & Order) E-4, Kattur Police Station Tiruvallur ..
Respondents Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a writ of habeas corpus to call for the records in connection Page Nos.1/9
with the order of detention passed by the second respondent dated 14.06.2022 in Memo No.54/BCDFGISSSV/2022 against the petitioner Husband Thiru.Mohanraj, male aged about 31 years son of Venkatesan, who is confined at Central Prison Puzhal-II, Chennai and set aside the same and direct the respondents to produce the detenu before this Court and set him at liberty.
For Petitioner :
Mr.S.Venkateswara Babu For Respondents :
Mr.R.Muniyapparaj Additional Public Prosecutor
O R D E R
[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 the detenu assailing a detention order dated 14.06.2022 bearing reference No.54/BCDFGISSSV/2022' [hereinafter 'impugned detention order' for the sake of brevity and convenience] made by the 'second respondent / jurisdictional Commissioner of Police' [hereinafter 'Detaining Authority' for the sake of brevity and convenience].
2. In and by the impugned detention order, the detenu has been detained branding him as a 'Goonda' within the meaning of Section 2(f) of 'The Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Cyber law offenders, Drug-offenders, Forest-offenders, Goondas, Immoral traffic Page Nos.2/9
offenders, Sand-offenders, 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]. 3.Mr.A.Venkateswara Babu, learned counsel for petitioner and Mr.R.Muniyapparaj, learned State Additional Public Prosecutor for all the four respondents are before us.
4. Notwithstanding very many averments in the support affidavit, learned counsel predicates his argument on two points and both the points pertain to grounds of detention which was served on the detenu in the form of a booklet [hereinafter 'said booklet' for the sake of convenience and clarity]. At page 74 of said booklet, a seizure mahazar dated 09.05.2022 has been annexed but the Crime Number is blank and a scanned reproduction of the same is as follows:
Page Nos.3/9
Page Nos.4/9
5. The second point turns on Page 229 of said booklet. At page 229 of said booklet, a remand order dated 10.05.2022 made by jurisdictional Magistrate has been annexed. A Tamil translation of the remand order has not been given to the detenu is learned counsel's say. We are informed that literacy level of the detenu is only X Standard and he is conversant only with his mother tongue Tamil.
6. As regards the first point, a perusal of page 74 reveals that the crime number is blank and therefore, State Additional Public Prosecutor really does not have much of a say on that. However, learned State Additional Public Prosecutor attempted to say that in Page 75 of the booklet, crime number has been given and another copy of the seizure mahazar has been annexed. A scanned reproduction of Page 75 of said booklet is as follows:
Page Nos.5/9
Page Nos.6/9
7. We carefully considered the two seizure mahazars. We find that the two seizure mahazars pertain to two different seizures. Therefore, it cannot be gainsaid that blank in page 74 has been taken care of. As regards the translation of the remand order dated 10.05.2022 at Page 229 of said booklet, said booklet as served on the detenu, has been placed before us. A perusal of the same reveals that there is no Tamil translation. In this regards, learned State Additional Public Prosecutor really does not have much of a say. We find that aforesaid points would enure to the benefit of the petitioner. The petitioner has lost his sanctus right to make an effective representation against the impugned detention order which is a constitutional guarantee ingrained in Clause (5) of Article 22 of the Constitution of India.
8. In the light of both the points projected by the petitioner finding favour with us, captioned HCP is allowed and the detention order dated 14.06.2022 bearing reference No.54/BCDFGISSSV/2022 made by the second respondent is set aside and detenu Thiru.Mohanraj, male aged about 31 years son of Venkatesan, who is confined at Central Prison Puzhal-II, Page Nos.7/9
Chennai is directed to be set at liberty forthwith unless required in connection with any other case/s.
Captioned HCP ordered on above terms.
(M.S.,J.) (M.N.K.,J.) 21.02.2023 gpa P.S: Registry to forthwith communicate this order to jail authorities in Central Prison, Puzhal To 1.
The Secretary to Government Home, Prohibition Excise Department Fort St.George, Chennai - 600 009 2.
The Commissioner of Police Avadi City 3.
The Superintendent Central Prison - II, Puzhal, Chennai 4.
The Inspector of Police (Law & Order) E-4, Kattur Police Station Tiruvallur 5.
The Public Prosecutor High Court, Madras.
Page Nos.8/9
M.SUNDAR, J., and M.NIRMAL KUMAR, J., gpa H.C.P.No.1437 of 2022 21.02.2023 Page Nos.9/9