Maharasi v. The Additional Chief Secretary To Government

H.C.P.(MD)No.909 of 2019 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 23.06.2020

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.N.PRAKASH AND THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B.PUGALENDHI H.C.P.(MD)No.909 of 2019 Maharasi : Petitioner/Mother of Detenu Vs.

1.The Additional Chief Secretary to the Government Home, Prohibition and Excise Department State of Tamilnadu Fort St. George Chennai-9.

2.The District Collector and District Magistrate Tirunelveli District, Tirunelveli.

3.The Superintendent of Prison Palayamkottai Central Prison Tirunelveli District.

: Respondents PRAYER: Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issue of a Writ of Habeas Corpus, to call for the entire records connected with the detention order of the respondent No.2 in M.H.S.Confdl.No.65/2019 dated 30.08.2019 and quash the same and direct the respondents to produce the detenu by name Chinnadurai, son of Muppidathi, aged about 23 years, now detained in Palayamkottai Central Prison before this Court and set him at liberty forthwith.

For Petitioner : Mr.R.Vinoth Bharathi For Respondents : Mr.R.Anandharaj Additional Public Prosecutor

ORDER

(Order of the Court was made by P.N.PRAKASH, J) The petitioner is the mother of the detenu viz., Chinnadurai, S/o.Muppidathi, aged about 23 years. The detenu has been detained, as per the order of the second respondent, dated 30.08.2019, under Section 2(f) of the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982, branding him as "Goonda". Challenging the same, the petititoner is before this Court in this Habeas Corpus Petition.

2.We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondents. We have https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 1/2

H.C.P.(MD)No.909 of 2019 also perused the records carefully.

3. In the English version of the remand order, it has been stated that the accused was produced before the learned Magistrate at 9.30 p.m. on 04.08.2019, whereas, English translation of the remand order, it has been stated as 'forenoon' instead of night 9.30 p.m. This, in our opinion, has not prejudiced the detenu. What is required for the detaining authority is as to whether the detenu was in remand during the relevant period or not. That apart, there is no delay in considering the representation of the detenu by the Government. In such view of the matter, the Habeas Corpus Petition stands dismissed.

Sd/- Assistant Registrar (AS) // True Copy // / /2020 Sub Assistant Registrar(CS) RR Note :

In view of the present lock down owing to COVID-19 pandemic, a web copy of the order may be utilized for official purposes, but, ensuring that the copy of the order that is presented is the correct copy, shall be the responsibility of the advocate / litigant concerned.

To 1.The Additional Chief Secretary to the Government Home, Prohibition and Excise Department State of Tamilnadu Fort St. George,Chennai-9.

2.The District Collector and District Magistrate Tirunelveli District, Tirunelveli.

3.The Superintendent of Prison Palayamkottai Central Prison Tirunelveli District.

4.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

Order made in H.C.P.(MD)No.909 of 2019 Dated: 23.06.2020 AP(03/07/2020) 2P 5C https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2/2