Sathish v. The Additional Chief Secretary To Government,
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 10.07.2023
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.SUNDAR and THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SAKTHIVEL H.C.P.No.2341 of 2022 Sathish .. Petitioner Vs
1. The Additional Chief Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Fort St.George, Chennai -9.
2. The Commissioner of Police, Greater Chennai, Vepery, Chennai - 7.
3.The Superintendent, Central Prison II, Puzhal, Chennai 66.
4.The Inspector of Police, Organized Crime Unit I, Crime Branch CID, Egmore, Chennai - 8.
.. 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 with the order of detention passed by the second respondent vide order in BCDFGISSSV No.406/2022 dated 04.11.2022 Page Nos.1/10
against the petitioner (Sathish, son of Dayalan, male, aged about 31 years) and the petitioner was confined at Central Prison II, Puzhal, Chennai and set aside the same and direct the respondents to produce the petitioner before this Court and set him at liberty. For Petitioner :
Mr.S.Senthilvel for Mr.R.Kisoth Kumar 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 the detenu assailing a 'preventive detention order dated 04.11.2022 bearing reference BCDFGISSSV No.406/2022' [hereinafter 'impugned preventive 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. Impugned preventive detention order has been made under 'The Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Page Nos.2/10
Cyber law offenders, Drug-offenders, Forest-offenders, Goondas, Immoral traffic offenders, Sand-offenders, Sexual-offenders, Slumgrabbers 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 is no adverse case. The ground case which is the sole substratum of the impugned detention order is Crime No.172 of 2022 on the file of Mambalam Railway Police Station for alleged offence under Section 302 of 'The Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860)' [hereinafter 'IPC' for the sake of convenience and clarity]. 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.
4. Mr.S.Senthilvel, learned counsel representing the counsel on record for petitioner and Mr.E.Raj Thilak, learned State Additional Public Prosecutor for all respondents are before us. Page Nos.3/10
5. In the support affidavit qua captioned HCP, several grounds have been urged/raised but in the Final Hearing Board today, Mr.S.Senthilvel, learned counsel representing the counsel on record for HCP petitioner predicated his campaign against the impugned preventive detention order on one point and that one point is different dates of occurrence (date of commission) being given in the Arrest Card which is in English and the Tamil translation of the same.
6. Elaborating on the aforesaid point, learned counsel drew our attention to pages 83 and 85 of the grounds booklet and a scanned reproduction of the same is as follows:
Page Nos.4/10
Page Nos.5/10
Page Nos.6/10
7. As already alluded to supra, Arrest Card in English and translation is in Tamil. It is seen that while the Arrest Card in English says the column as 'Date of Commission' alone Tamil translation of the column, it is 'Fw;wk; ele;j ehs; kw;Wk; neuk;'. Besides this, while the English Arrest Card shows the date of commission as 13.10.2022, Tamil translation shows the same as 27.09.2022.
8. The above point turns solely on records before us and therefore learned Prosecutor really does not have much of a say.
9. Be that as it may, the aforementioned dates in the Arrest Card in English and Tamil translation of the same is that of a nature which can baffle the detenu, impairing his right to make an effective representation against the impugned preventive detention order. To be noted, right of a detenu to make a representation i.e., an effective representation against a preventive detention order is sanctus/sacrosanct constitutional safeguard ingrained in Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India and therefore the infraction of the same vitiates the impugned preventive detention order and leaves the Page Nos.7/10
preventive detention order liable for dislodgement in this habeas legal drill.
10. Ergo, the sequitur is, captioned HCP is allowed. Impugned preventive detention order dated 04.11.2022 bearing reference BCDFGISSSV No.406/2022 made by the second respondent is set aside and the detenu Thiru.Sathish, aged 31 years, Son of Thiru. Dhayalan, 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.) 10.07.2023 Index : Yes/No mmi P.S: Registry to forthwith communicate this order to Jail authorities in Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai. To
1. The Additional Chief Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Fort St.George, Chennai -9.
2. The Commissioner of Police, Greater Chennai, Vepery, Chennai - 7.
Page Nos.8/10
3.The Superintendent, Central Prison II, Puzhal, Chennai 66.
4.The Inspector of Police, Organized Crime Unit I, Crime Branch CID, Egmore, Chennai - 8.
5.The Public Prosecutor High Court, Madras.
Page Nos.9/10
M.SUNDAR, J., and R.SAKTHIVEL, J., mmi H.C.P.No.2341 of 2022 10.07.2023 Page Nos.10/10