Madras High Court
Krishnaveni vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 4 March, 2024
Author: M.S.Ramesh
Bench: M.S. Ramesh
HCP.No.2466 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 04.03.2024
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.S. RAMESH
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN
H.C.P.No.2466 of 2023
Krishnaveni ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.State of Tamil Nadu,
Rep. by its Secretary to Government,
Home, Prohibition and Excise Department,
Secretariat, Chennai – 600 009.
2.The District Collector and District Magistrate,
Cuddalore District, Cuddalore.
3.The Superintendent of Police,
Cuddalore District, Cuddalore.
4.The Inspector of Police,
Neyveli Township Police Station,
Cuddalore District.
5.The Superintendent,
Central Prison, Cuddalore. ... Respondents
PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to
issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus, calling for the entire records, relating to
Page 1 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
HCP.No.2466 of 2023
petitioner's friend detention under Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982 vide
detention order, dated 26.10.2023 on the file of the second respondent
herein made in proceedings C3/D.O./69/2023 and quash the same as
illegal and consequently direct the respondents herein to produce the
petitioner's friend namely Sanjith, aged about 22 years, S/o.
Gopalakrishnan @ Murali, before this Court and set him at liberty, now
petitioner's friend detained at Central Prison, Cuddalore.
For Petitioner : Mr.C.C.Chelliappan
For Respondents : Mr.E.Raj Thilak,
Additional Public Prosecutor
assisted by Mr.C. Aravind
ORDER
M.S.RAMESH, J.
AND
SUNDER MOHAN, J.
The petitioner herein, who is the friend of the detenu namely
Sanjith, aged about 22 years, S/o. Gopalakrishnan @ Murali, has come
forward with this petition challenging the detention order passed by the
second respondent dated 26.10.2023 slapped on his friend, branding him
as "Goonda" under the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of
Bootleggers, Cyber Law Offenders, Drug Offenders, Forest Offenders,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders, Sand Offenders, Sexual Offenders,
Slum Grabbers and Video Pirates Act, 1982 [Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982].
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, as well as the learned
Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents.
3. Though several grounds are raised in the petition, the learned
counsel for the petitioner pointed out that the copy of the remand order
and the remand extension order has not been furnished to the detenu. It is
in this circumstances, the learned counsel for the petitioner stated that
serious prejudice has been caused to the petitioner for making effective
representation.
4. On a perusal of the Booklet, it is seen that the copy of the remand
order, as well as the remand extension order is not available in the booklet
as the same has not been furnished to the detenu. Since a specific stand
has been taken that serious prejudice is caused to the petitioner, this Court
finds that the failure to furnish a copy of the remand order and remand
extension order also vitiates the Detention Order.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
5. In this context, it is useful to refer to the judgment of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in 'Powanammal Vs. State of Tamil Nadu' reported in
'(1999) 2 SCC 413'. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, after discussing the
safeguards embodied in Article 22[5] of the Constitution, observed that the
detenu should be afforded an opportunity of making representation
effectively against the Detention Order and that, the failure to supply
every material in the language which can be understood by the detenu, is
imperative. In the said context, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held in
Paragraphs 9 and 16 {as in SCC journal} as follows:
“9.However, this Court has maintained a
distinction between a document which has been relied
upon by the detaining authority in the grounds of
detention and a document which finds a mere
reference in the grounds of detention. Whereas the
non-supply of a copy of the document relied upon in
the grounds of detention has been held to be fatal to
continued detention, the detenu need not show that
any prejudice is caused to him. This is because the
non-supply of such a document would amount to
denial of the right of being communicated the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
grounds and of being afforded the opportunity of
making an effective representation against the order.
But it would not be so where the document merely
finds a reference in the order of detention or among
the grounds thereof. In such a case, the detenu's
complaint of non-supply of document has to be
supported by prejudice caused to him in making an
effective representation. What applies to a document
would equally apply to furnishing a translated copy
of the document in the language known to and
understood by the detenu, should the document be in
a different language.
..... 16.For the above reasons, in our view,
the non-supply of the Tamil version of the English
document, on the facts and in the circumstances,
renders her continued detention illegal. We, therefore,
direct that the detenue be set free forthwith unless she
is required to be detained in any other case. The
appeal is accordingly allowed.”
6. In view of the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and
in view of the aforesaid facts, this Court is of the view that the detention
order is liable to be quashed.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
7. Hence, for the aforesaid reasons, the detention order passed by
the second respondent on 26.10.2023 in C3/D.O./69/2023, is hereby set
aside and the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed. The detenu viz., Sanjith,
aged about 22 years, S/o. Gopalakrishnan @ Murali, is directed to be set at
liberty forthwith, unless he is required in connection with any other case.
[M.S.R., J] [S.M., J]
04.03.2024
Index: Yes/No
Internet:Yes/No
Neutral Citation: Yes/No
Sni
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
To
1.The Secretary to Government,
Home, Prohibition and Excise Department,
Secretariat, Chennai – 600 009.
2.The District Collector and District Magistrate,
Cuddalore District, Cuddalore.
3.The Superintendent of Police,
Cuddalore District, Cuddalore.
4.The Inspector of Police,
Neyveli Township Police Station,
Cuddalore District.
5.The Superintendent,
Central Prison, Cuddalore.
6.The Public Prosecutor,
High Court, Madras.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
M.S.RAMESH, J.
and
SUNDER MOHAN, J.
Sni
04.03.2024
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
