Allowed

Suguna v. State of Tamil Nadu

Madras HC4 Jun 2014HCP/2285/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court held that where detaining authorities supply illegible copies of documents relied upon in a detention order, they violate constitutional safeguards. Consequently, the Petition for Habeas Corpus was allowed, and the detention order was quashed.

What did the court decide?

The impugned detention order dated 06.09.2013 is quashed, and the detenu is ordered to be set at liberty forthwith, unless custody is required in any other case.

Suguna Vs State of Tamil Nadu — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Madras HC (2014)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 04.06.2014

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.DHANAPALAN and THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.CHOCKALINGAM

¶5

H.C.P. No.2285 of 2013

¶6

Suguna .. Petitioner Vs. 1.State of Tamil Nadu, rep.by its Secretary, Prohibition and Excise Department, Fort St.George, Chennai-600 009. 2.The District Collector and District Magistrate, Villupuram, Villupuram District 3.The Inspector of Police, Villupuram Town Station, Villupuram, Villupuram District. .. Respondents

¶7

Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a writ of habeas corpus, to call for the records of the detention order C2/25849/2013 dated 06.09.2013, on the file of the second respondent herein, and quash the same and direct the respondents herein to produce the body of the detenu Jambi alias Suresh alias Shankaralingam son of Danasekar, aged about 24 years, before this Court and set him at liberty.

¶8

(Order of the Court was made by V.DHANAPALAN, J.)

¶9

The petitioner is the mother of the detenu. The detenu has been branded as a "Goonda" as contemplated under Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982 and detained under order of the 2^nd respondent passed in

¶10

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶11

No.C2/25849/2013 dated 06.09.2013.

¶12

The detenu came to adverse notice in the following cases:-

¶13

Sr.No.	Police Statio	n and Crime No.	Sections of Law
1.	Villupuram	Town Police	147, 148, 324, 325, 506
	Station,Crime	No.504/2010	(ii), 302 r/w 149 IPC
2.	Villupuram	Town Police	147, 148, 449, 451, 506
	Station Crime	No.622/2012	(ii), 302 r/w 149 IPC
3.	Kallakurichi Crime No.231/	Police Station 2013	148, 294(b), 452, 427, 307 IPC

¶14

The ground case alleged against the detenu is one registered on 14.08.2013 by the Inspector of Police, Villupuram Town Police Station in Crime No.671 of 2013 for the offence under Section 399 IPC. Aggrieved by the order of detention, the present petition has been filed.

¶15

3.Though learned counsel for the petitioner has raised several other grounds to assail the order of detention, he has mainly focused his argument on the ground that the detaining authority, while detaining the detenu, has not furnished the legible copies of the documents relied on by him and this deprived the detenu from making effective representation. He has also submitted that the said act of detaining authority is against the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Manjit Singh Grewal @ Gogi vs. Union of India and others, reported in 1990 (Supp) SCC 59 and therefore, on this sole ground, the detention order is liable to be quashed.

¶16

4.We have heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor on the above submission.

¶17

5.On consideration of the submissions made on either side and upon perusal of the documents available on record, especially Page No.231 of the booklet – Form of order for the Detention in Custody of an Accused Person, it is clear that the detaining authority, by providing illegible copy of the document, which is the order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Villupuram, granting extension of custody, has taken away the rights of detenu to effectively defend himself against his detention.

¶18

6.The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Manjit Singh Grewal @ Gogi vs. Union of India and others (supra) has been pleased to hold as under:

¶19

"3. It appears that the appellant had asked for certain copies of the documents, which admittedly were there with the respondent – Union of India. Copies of the documents were supplied, but the same were not legible. This position

¶20

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶21

is also apparent. It is not necessary in the facts of this case to go into the question whether these documents were relevant or material.

¶22

In view of the fact that the copies of the documents were, in fact, supplied at the request of the appellant, but the copies supplied were illegible, we are of the opinion, that the safeguards provided by the Constitution have not been followed. In that view of the matter the decision of the High Court cannot be sustained and, therefore, is set aside. The Order of detention dated June 9, 1988 is quashed and the appellant be set at liberty unless he is required in respect of any other proceedings."

¶23

7.Thus, in the light of the above settled position, in view of supply of illegible copy of custody order and also considering the fact that safeguards provided by the Constitution have not been followed, the impugned detention order passed by the 2nd respondent, detaining the detenu Jambi @ Suresh @ Sankaralingam, S/o.Danasekar, made in No.C2/25849/2013 dated 06.09.2013 is quashed and the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed. The above named detenu, who is detained at the Central Prison, Cuddalore, is ordered to be set at liberty forthwith, unless his custody is required in connection with any other case.

¶24

8.However, in view of serious offences involved in this matter, it is open to the prosecution to effectively contest the matter before the Regular Court, uninfluenced by the above order. It is also made clear that this order shall not confer any right or advantage whatsoever to the detenu to claim anything before the Regular Court.

Sd/-

Assistant Registrar

//True Copy//

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶29

mmi To

¶30

1.The Secretary, Prohibition and Excise Department, Fort St.George, Chennai-600 009.

¶31

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

¶32

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶33

3.The Inspector of Police,
Villupuram Town Station,
Villupuram,
Villupuram District.
4.The Superintendent,
Central Prison, Cuddalore.
5.The Public Prosecutor
High Court, Madras.
6.The Joint secretary to Government,
PUblic (Law & Order)
Fort Saint George, Chennai -9.
HCP No.2285 of 2013
pk(co)
pmk.17.6.2014

¶34

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

Suguna v. State of Tamil Nadu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Suguna v. State of Tamil Nadu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mamu @ Syed Ibrahim Vs the Secretary to Government

S.Rajakumari Vs the Secretary to Government

Saraswathi Vs the Government of Tamil Nadu

Vs

Dhanam Vs the State of Tamilnadu

Hemavathy Vs the Secretary to Government