A. Pushparani Vs. the Commissioner of Police Greater and Two ors.

A. Pushparani vs The Commissioner of Police Greater and Two ors.

Disposition Petition allowed Court Chennai Decided Sep 18, 2002

~3 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/834743

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/834743
Court: Chennai High Court
Judge: N. Dhinakar and ;A. Packiaraj, JJ.
Decided On: Sep 18, 2002
Case Number: H.C.P. No. 1210 of 2002
Subject: Criminal
Disposition: Petition allowed

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

- T.N. ESTATES (ABOLITION & CONVERSION INTO RYOTWARI) ACT, 1948 [Act No. 26/1948]. Sections 5(2) & 67; [A.P. Shah, CJ, Mrs. Prabha Sridevan & P. Jyothimani, JJ] Suo motu revisional powers Held, On a bare reading of the provisions of Section 5(2) of the Act, it is clear that the power conferred on the Director by Se...

Key legal issue: Criminal
Outcome / disposition: Petition allowed
Acts & sections: Constitution of India - Article 226; Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

A. Pushparani

Advocate K. Subramanian, S.C. for ;M. Mohamed Shaffi, Adv.

Respondent

The Commissioner of Police Greater and Two ors.

Advocate A. Navaneetha Krishna, Addl. Public Prosecutor

Legal References

Acts: Constitution of India - Article 226; Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974
Cases Referred: District Magistrate and Anr. v. R. Kumaravel
Reported In: 2003(1)CTC616; 2003(87)ECC43

Excerpt

.....had been granted to a person under the relevant provisions of the act, then to set right that mistake, the director should be enabled to exercise his power so as to effectuate the scheme of the act and to implement the purpose behind the act. the fact that the rule making authority has prescribed procedure in exercise of the powers under section 67 for making an application to the director does not mean that the suo motu power which is explicit in section 5(2) of the act is in any way curtailed or taken away. therefore, the contention of the respondent that making an application is sine qua non for invoking the power under section 5(2) of the act is not tenable. -- t.n. estates (abolition & conversion into ryotwari) act, 1948. sections 5(2) & 67; suo motu revisional powers held, on a bare reading of the provisions of section 5(2) of the act, it is clear that the power conferred on the director by section 5(2) to cancel or revise any of the orders, acts or proceedings of the settlement officer is very wide. in the first place, the director need not necessarily be moved by any party in that behalf, and the power could be exercised either on an application by an aggrieved person or suo motu. for example, if the director comes to know that contrary to the scheme of the act or due to misrepresentation or fraud played, a patta had been granted to a person under the relevant provisions of the act, then to set right that mistake, the director should be enabled to exercise his power so as to effectuate the scheme of the act and to implement the purpose behind the act. the fact that the rule making authority has prescribed procedure in exercise of the powers under section 67 for making an application to the director does not mean that the suo motu power which is explicit in section 5(2) of the act is in any way curtailed or taken away. therefore, the contention of the respondent that making an application is sine qua non for invoking the power under section 5(2) of..........which are prejudicial to the maintenance of public order and hence passed the impugned order.2. it is not necessary for us to incorporate the details of the grounds of detention, since no point is urged in relation to the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority and both the parties have agreed that the habeas corpus petition has to be considered on a short point.3. the counsel for the petitioner would submit that the wife of the detenu sent a pre-detention representation dated 6.4.2002 to the detaining authority, stating that her husband has been taken into illegal custody and a false case has been foisted upon him. admittedly, the same has been received by the commissioner of police on 10.4.2002. according to the counsel, in spite of the matter being communicated to the detaining authority, he has passed the order of detention detaining the detenu as 'goonda' and the ground of detention does not disclose that the representation has been considered by the detaining authority.4. the petitioner has produced before this court the acknowledgment that has been received from the office of the commissioner of police for having received the representation. in addition to the above said acknowledgment card, he would also place before this court, a copy of the communication dated 15.4.2002, sent from the office of the district collector, madras, addressed to the commissioner of police, enclosing the representation sent on behalf of the detenu, requesting him to take appropriate steps.5. in spite of the fact that the representation received by the commissioner show that the detenu had been taken into custody on 31.3.2002 itself and the same has been published at page-3 of the malaimalar, a daily publication dated 1.4.2002, the alleged incident is said to have taken place only on 2.4.2002 at 4.30 p.m., while the detenu was in illegal detention at the police station. therefore, the non consideration of this by the detaining authority according to the.....

Full Judgment

ORDER

A. Packiaraj, J.

1. Petitioner is the wife of the detenu, who has been detained pursuant to the order passed by the first respondent dated 12.5.2002 branding him as a 'Goonda'. Since he had come to the adverse notice of the authorities on earlier occasions and in relation to the ground case dated 2.4.2002, the detaining authority felt that if he is allowed to remain at large, he will indulge in activities, which are prejudicial to the maintenance of public order and hence passed the impugned order.

2. It is not necessary for us to incorporate the details of the grounds of detention, since no point is urged in relation to the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority and both the parties have agreed that the Habeas Corpus petition has to be considered on a short point.

3. The counsel for the petitioner would submit that the wife of the detenu sent a pre-detention representation dated 6.4.2002 to the detaining authority, stating that her husband has been taken into illegal custody and a false case has been foisted upon him. Admittedly, the same has been received by the Commissioner of Police on 10.4.2002. According to the counsel, in spite of the matter being communicated to the detaining authority, he has passed the order of detention detaining the detenu as 'Goonda' and the ground of detention does not disclose that the representation has been considered by the detaining authority.

4. The petitioner has produced before this court the acknowledgment that has been received from the office of the Commissioner of Police for having received the representation. In addition to the above said acknowledgment card, he would also place before this court, a copy of the communication dated 15.4.2002, sent from the Office of the District Collector, Madras, addressed to the Commissioner of Police, enclosing the representation sent on behalf of the detenu, requesting him to take appropriate steps.

5. In spite of the fact that the representation received by the Commissioner show that the detenu had been taken into custody on 31.3.2002 itself and the same has been published at Page-3 of the Malaimalar, a Daily Publication dated 1.4.2002, the alleged incident is said to have taken place only on 2.4.2002 at 4.30 p.m., while the detenu was in illegal detention at the police station. Therefore, the non consideration of this by the Detaining Authority according to the petitioner, vitiates the impugned order.

6. Quite a number of decisions of this Hon'ble Court reported in Syed Ali v. State of Tamil Nadu, 1999 (1) MWN(Crl) 360; Mani v. The State of Tamil Nadu rep. by the Secretary to Govt. Proh. and Excise Dept., Fort St. George, Chennai - 9 and Anr., 2000 (1) MWN (Cri) 279, in furtherance of the principle laid down by the Apex Court reported in District Magistrate and Anr. v. R. Kumaravel, 1994 SCC (Cri) 229 has clearly stated that any pre-detention representation has to be necessarily considered at the time of passing of the grounds of detention and in the absence of the same, the order gets vitiated. Consequently, in view of the fact that the pre-detention representation sent by the detenu has not been considered by the Detaining Authority at the time of passing the impugned order, the same gets vitiated and accordingly, deserves to be set aside.

7. In the result, the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed. The detenu is directed to be set at liberty forthwith unless he is required in connection with any other cases.

Same Court & Year Chennai · 2002 Same Parties A. Pushparani vs The Commissioner of Police Greater and Two ors. Same Subject Criminal Same Judge N. Dhinakar and ;A. Packiaraj, JJ. Acts & Sections Constitution of India - Article 226; Conservation of Foreign ...

Criminal