S.Sumathi Vs. the State of Tamilnadu - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citationsooperkanoon.com/1167885
CourtChennai High Court
Decided OnJun-18-2014
JudgeV.DHANAPALAN
AppellantS.Sumathi
RespondentThe State of Tamilnadu
Excerpt:
in the high court of judicature at madras dated :18. 06.2014 coram the honourable mr.justice v.dhanapalan and the honourable mr.justice g.chockalingam h.c.p.no.3194 of 2013 s.sumathi .. petitioner vs. 1.the state of tamilnadu, rep. by its secretary to government, home, prohibition and excise department, secretariat, chennai 600 009. 2.the commissioner of police, chennai police. .. respondents petition filed under article 226 of the constitution of india praying for a writ of habeas corpus, to call for the records relating to the detention order passed by the second respondent dated 28.10.2013 in memo no.1456/b.d.f.g.i.s.s.v/2013 against the petitioner's son/detenue suresh, s/o. sambath, hindu, aged about 24 years who is now confined at central prison, puzhal, chennai and set aside the same and direct the respondents to produce him this court and set him at liberty. for petitioner : mr.v.perarasu for respondents : mr.p.govindarajan, addl. public prosecutor order (order of the court was made by v.dhanapalan, j.) ==== the petitioner is the son of the detenu and the detenu has been branded as a ".goonda". as contemplated under tamil nadu act 14 of 1982 and detained under the order of the second respondent passed in memo no.1456/b.d.f.g.i.s.s.v/2013 , dated 28.10.2013.2. as per the grounds of detention dated 28.10.2013, the detenu came to the adverse notice in the following cases :- sl. no.police station & crime no.section of law 1 t-1, ambathur police station cr. no.455/2012 341, 294(b), 324 and 307 i.p.c. 2 t-1, ambathur police station cr. no.1413/2013 341, 294(b), 323, 324 and 506 (ii) i.p.c. 3 t-1, ambattur police station cr. no.1606/2013 341, 294(b), 323, 324 and 506 (ii) i.p.c. 4 t-1, ambattur police station cr. no.1635/2013 341, 384 and 506(ii) i.p.c.3. in para 3 of the grounds of detention, it is stated that the detenu is also involved in the commission of the offence, which took place on 20.10.2013 at 07.00 hours, which led to the registration of a case by inspector of police, t-1 ambattur police station, in crime no.1662 of 2013 for the offences under sections 341, 294(b), 336, 427, 392, 397 and 506(ii) i.p.c. it is further stated that the detenu was arrested and produced before the learned judicial magistrate, ambattur, chennai on the same day and remanded to judicial custody.4. the detaining authority, on being satisfied upon the materials placed before him that the activities of the detenu are prejudicial to the maintenance of public order, clamped the order of detention. challenging the said order, the petitioner is before this court by way of this habeas corpus petition.5. though learned counsel for the petitioner has raised several other grounds to assail the order of detention, he mainly focused his argument on the ground that there is a delay in disposal of the representation dated 29.11.2013, which is violative of article 22(5) of the constitution of india and therefore, on this sole ground alone, the detention order is liable to be quashed.6. we have heard the learned additional public prosecutor on the above submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the records.7. on a careful scrutiny of the impugned order, it is seen that the detaining authority has passed the order of detention on 28.10.2013 and on receipt of a copy of detention order, a representation dated 29.11.2013 was made to the authorities concerned, which was received on 04.12.2013, for which the remarks called on 04.12.2013 were received on 16.12.2013. on submission of the file on 18.12.2013, it was dealt with by both the under secretary and deputy secretary on the same day and thereafter, the file was submitted to the minister on 23.12.2013. finally the representation of the detenu was decided to be rejected vide letter dated 23.12.2013.8. in this whole process, there occurred a delay of more than 5 days, namely, between 04.12.2013 and 16.12.2013, excluding the holidays, which would definitely cause great prejudice to the detenu and amount to an infringement of right ensured under article 22(5) of the constitution of india. therefore, the impugned detention order cannot be sustained and is vitiated.9. in the result, this habeas corpus petition is allowed and the impugned detention order made in memo no.1456/b.d.f.g.i.s.s.v/2013, dated 28.10.2013, is set aside. the detenu  suresh, son of sampath, is directed to be set at liberty forthwith, unless his custody is required in connection with any other case. (v.d.p.,j.) (g.c.,j.) 18.06.2014 index:yes/no cla to 1.the secretary to government, home, state of tamilnadu, prohibition and excise department, secretariat, chennai 600 009. 2.the commissioner of police, chennai police. 3.the superintendent, central prison, chennai. 4.the public prosecutor, high court, madras. v.dhanapalan, j.and g.chockalingam,j.cla/gp hcp no.3194 of 2013 dated:18. 6.2014
Judgment:

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED :

18. 06.2014 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.DHANAPALAN and THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.CHOCKALINGAM H.C.P.No.3194 of 2013 S.Sumathi .. Petitioner Vs. 1.The State of Tamilnadu, Rep. By its Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Secretariat, Chennai 600 009. 2.The Commissioner of Police, Chennai Police. .. Respondents Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a writ of habeas corpus, to call for the records relating to the detention order passed by the second respondent dated 28.10.2013 in Memo No.1456/B.D.F.G.I.S.S.V/2013 against the petitioner's son/Detenue SURESH, S/o. Sambath, Hindu, aged about 24 years who is now confined at Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai and set aside the same and direct the respondents to produce him this Court and set him at liberty. For Petitioner : Mr.V.Perarasu For Respondents : Mr.P.Govindarajan, Addl. Public Prosecutor ORDER

(Order of the Court was made by V.DHANAPALAN, J.) ==== The petitioner is the son of the detenu and the detenu has been branded as a ".Goonda". as contemplated under Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982 and detained under the order of the second respondent passed in Memo No.1456/B.D.F.G.I.S.S.V/2013 , dated 28.10.2013.

2. As per the grounds of detention dated 28.10.2013, the detenu came to the adverse notice in the following cases :- Sl. No.Police Station & Crime No.Section of Law 1 T-1, Ambathur Police Station Cr. No.455/2012 341, 294(b), 324 and 307 I.P.C. 2 T-1, Ambathur Police Station Cr. No.1413/2013 341, 294(b), 323, 324 and 506 (ii) I.P.C. 3 T-1, Ambattur Police Station Cr. No.1606/2013 341, 294(b), 323, 324 and 506 (ii) I.P.C. 4 T-1, Ambattur Police Station Cr. No.1635/2013 341, 384 and 506(ii) I.P.C.

3. In para 3 of the grounds of detention, it is stated that the detenu is also involved in the commission of the offence, which took place on 20.10.2013 at 07.00 hours, which led to the registration of a case by Inspector of Police, T-1 Ambattur Police Station, in Crime No.1662 of 2013 for the offences under Sections 341, 294(b), 336, 427, 392, 397 and 506(ii) I.P.C. It is further stated that the detenu was arrested and produced before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Ambattur, Chennai on the same day and remanded to judicial custody.

4. The detaining authority, on being satisfied upon the materials placed before him that the activities of the detenu are prejudicial to the maintenance of public order, clamped the order of detention. Challenging the said order, the petitioner is before this Court by way of this habeas corpus petition.

5. Though learned counsel for the petitioner has raised several other grounds to assail the order of detention, he mainly focused his argument on the ground that there is a delay in disposal of the representation dated 29.11.2013, which is violative of Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India and therefore, on this sole ground alone, the detention order is liable to be quashed.

6. We have heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor on the above submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the records.

7. On a careful scrutiny of the impugned order, it is seen that the detaining authority has passed the order of detention on 28.10.2013 and on receipt of a copy of detention order, a representation dated 29.11.2013 was made to the authorities concerned, which was received on 04.12.2013, for which the remarks called on 04.12.2013 were received on 16.12.2013. On submission of the file on 18.12.2013, it was dealt with by both the Under Secretary and Deputy Secretary on the same day and thereafter, the file was submitted to the Minister on 23.12.2013. Finally the representation of the detenu was decided to be rejected vide letter dated 23.12.2013.

8. In this whole process, there occurred a delay of more than 5 days, namely, between 04.12.2013 and 16.12.2013, excluding the holidays, which would definitely cause great prejudice to the detenu and amount to an infringement of right ensured under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India. Therefore, the impugned detention order cannot be sustained and is vitiated.

9. In the result, this habeas corpus petition is allowed and the impugned detention order made in Memo No.1456/B.D.F.G.I.S.S.V/2013, dated 28.10.2013, is set aside. The detenu  Suresh, son of Sampath, is directed to be set at liberty forthwith, unless his custody is required in connection with any other case. (V.D.P.,J.) (G.C.,J.) 18.06.2014 Index:Yes/No cla To 1.The Secretary to Government, Home, State of Tamilnadu, Prohibition and Excise Department, Secretariat, Chennai 600 009. 2.The Commissioner of Police, Chennai Police. 3.The Superintendent, Central Prison, Chennai. 4.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras. V.DHANAPALAN, J.

and G.CHOCKALINGAM,J.

cla/gp HCP No.3194 of 2013 DATED:

18. 6.2014