S.Kumar, Aged About 54 Years v. The Commissioner Of Police

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 24.04.2017

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.NAGAMUTHU and THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE ANITA SUMANTH H.C.P.No.2030 of 2016 S.Kumar .. Petitioner Vs.

1.The Commissioner of Police, Chennai Police, Chennai District.

2.The Inspector of Police, S-4 Nandambakkam Police Station, Nandambakkam, Chennai - 600 089.

..Respondents Prayer : 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 BCDFGISSSV.No.919/2016 dated 17.08.2016 and set aside the same as illegal and for a consequential direction directing the respondents herein to produce the body and person of detenu Senthilkumar S/o Kumar, aged 30 years who has been termed as Goonda and now confined in Central Prison, Puzhal before this Court and set him at liberty.

For Petitioner :

Ms.S.Deepika For Respondents :

Mr.V.M.R.Rajentren, Additional Public Prosecutor

ORDER

[Order of the Court was made by S.NAGAMUTHU, J.] The petitioner, who is the father of the detenu Senthilkumar, aged 30 years, has come forward with this petition challenging the detention order passed by the first respondent, dated 17.08.2016, against his son branding him as a "Goonda" under the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Forest Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders, Sand Offenders, Slum Grabbers and Video Pirates Act, 1982 [Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982].

2.Though, many grounds have been raised in the petition, Ms.S.Deepika, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, confines her argument only in respect of non-application of mind, on the part of the detaining authority, in passing the order of detention.

3.Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that, a copy of F.I.R., in Crime No.384/2015; complaint made by one Mr.R.Gopinath and a copy of the order made in Crl.M.P.No.2805 of 2015 in Crime No.384/2015 dated 25.02.2015, furnished to the detenu and found in the booklet, are illegible and could not be read at all. These illegible copies, would deprive the detenu of making effective representation, to the authorities, against the order of detention. Thus, the detention order is vitiated. On this ground the impugned detention order is liable to be quashed.

4.Per contra, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that, the order of detention has been passed, on cogent and sufficient materials and the same cannot be interfered with, at the instance of the petitioner. Therefore, he submits that the Habeas Corpus Petition, does not merit any consideration and the same is liable to be dismissed.

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

6.A perusal of the booklet supplied to the detenu, would show that the copy of documents referred and relied upon and referred to by the Detaining Authority, F.I.R., in Crime No.384/2015; complaint made by one Mr.R.Gopinath and a copy of the order made in Crl.M.P.No.2805 of 2015 in Crime No.384/2015 dated 25.02.2015 are totally unreadable. This has resulted the detenu being deprived of making an effective representation. Therefore, the detention order is vitiated and liable to be quashed on this ground alone.

7.It is a trite law that, personal liberty protected under Article 21, is so sacrosanct and so high in the scale of Constitutional values that, it is the obligation of the detaining authority to show that the impugned detention meticulously accords with the procedure established by law. Preventive detention is preventive and not punitive. When ordinary law of the land is sufficient to deal with, taking recourse to the preventive detention law is illegal. 8.In the light of the above facts and law, we have no hesitation in quashing the order of detention on the above mentioned ground.

9.Accordingly, the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and the impugned detention order in BCDFGISSSV.No.919/2016 dated 17.08.2016 passed by the first respondent 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 /true copy/ Sub Asst. Registrar jbm To 1.The Commissioner of Police, Chennai Police, Chennai District.

2.The Inspector of Police, S-4 Nandambakkam Police Station, Nandambakkam, Chennai - 600 089.

3.The Secretary to Government, Home Prohibition and Excise Department, Fort Saint George, Chennai-9.

4.The Superintendent Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai.

5.The Joit secretary to Government, Public (Law & Order) Fort saint George, Chennai-9.

6.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.

H.C.P.No.2030 of 2016 SR(CO) VR(17/5/2017)