Allowed

C.Gokulakrishnan v. the State of Tamil Nadu

Madras HC16 Jun 2014HCP/69/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a habeas corpus petition filed by the son of a detenu, the court quashed the detention order because the detaining authority supplied an illegible copy of a document supplied by the Sub-Registrar, violating constitutional safeguards and Supreme Court precedent, thereby allowing the petitioner and directing the detenu's release.

What did the court decide?

The impugned detention order passed on 13.12.2013 is quashed. The detenu, Chellaiah, is ordered to be set at liberty forthwith unless his custody is required in connection with any other case.

C.Gokulakrishnan Vs the State of Tamil Nadu — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Madras HC (2014)

¶1

In the High Court of Judicature at Madras

¶2

Dated: 16.06.2014

¶3

Coram :-

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE V.DHANAPALAN and THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE G.CHOCKALINGAM

¶5

Habeas Corpus Petition No.69 of 2014

C.Gokulakrishnan

... Petitioner

-vs-

The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by its Secretary, Home, Prohibition and Excise Dept., Fort St.George, Chennai-600 009.

¶10

The Commissioner of Police, Chennai City, Egmore, Chennai. ... Respondents

¶11

Prayer: Writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is filed praying for issuance of a writ of Habeas Corpus, calling for the records relating to the detention passed by the 2^nd respondent in Memo No.1906/BDFGISSV/2013 dated 13.12.2013, quash the same and direct the respondents to produce the detenu Chellaiah, S/o.Mottaiah, male aged 58 years, now confined at the Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai before this Hon'ble Court and set him at liberty.

¶12

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

¶13

The petitioner is the son of detenu. The detenu has been branded as a "Goonda" under the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982 and detained under order of the 2^nd respondent passed in Memo No.1906/BDFGISSV/2013 dated 13.12.2013.

¶14

The detenu came to adverse notice in the following case:

¶15

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

¶16

Sl.No.	Police Station and Crime No. Secti	ons of Law
1	Central Crime Branch Crime No.563 of 2010 Sections 467, 468,	419, 420, 465, 471 and 120(b) IPC

¶17

The ground case alleged against the detenue is one registered on 09.11.2013 by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Team XVII, Central Crime Branch Crime No.448 of 2013 for offences under Sections 420, 465, 467, 468, 471, 474 r/w 120(b) IPC. Aggrieved by the order of detention, the present petition has been filed.

¶18

Though learned counsel for the petitioner has raised several other grounds to assail the order of detention, he has mainly focussed his argument on the ground that the detaining authority, while detaining the detenu, has not furnished the legible copy of the document, which was annexed in the booklet, which has deprived the detenu to make his 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.

¶19

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

¶20

On consideration of the submissions made on either side and upon perusal of the documents available on record, especially Page Nos.283 to 285 of the booklet, it is clear that the detaining authority, by providing illegible copy of document, which is a document provided by the Sub-Registrar, District Registration Office, North Chennai, has taken away the rights of detenu to effectively defend himself against his detention.

¶21

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:

¶22

"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 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.

¶23

In view of the fact that the copies of the documents were, in fact, supplied at the request of the appellant, but

¶24

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

¶25

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."

¶26

Thus, in the light of the above settled position, in view of supply of illegible copy of document and also considering the fact that safeguards provided by the Constitution have not been followed, the impugned detention order passed by the 2^nd respondent, detaining the detenu Chellaiah, S/o.Mottaiah, made in Memo No.1906/BDFGISSV/2013 dated 13.12.2013 is quashed and the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed. The above named detenu, who is detained at the Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai, is ordered to be set at liberty forthwith, unless his custody is required in connection with any other case.

¶27

However, it is made clear that this order shall not preclude authorities concerned 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.

¶28

Sd/Assistant Registrar

¶29

//True Copy//

¶30

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶31

¶32

¶33

The Secretary,

¶34

The State of Tamil Nadu,

¶35

Home, Prohibition and Excise Dept., Fort St.George, Chennai-600 009.

¶36

The Commissioner of Police, Chennai City, Egmore, Chennai.

¶37

The Superintendent, Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai.

¶38

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

¶39

4.The Joint Secretary to Government, Public(Law & Order) Fort St.George, Chennai-9

¶40

The Public Prosecutor High Court, Madras.

¶41

1 cc to Mr.Liagat Ali,Advocate, SR.No.24802/2014

¶42

Habeas Corpus Petition No.69 of 2014

¶43

sv(co) pmk.27.6.2014

¶44

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

C.Gokulakrishnan v. the State of Tamil Nadu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

C.Gokulakrishnan v. the 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Suganantham Vs the State of Tamil Nadu

Karthik Vs the Commissioner of Police

Kaleem Vs the Secretary to the

T.v.Sashindran Vs the Commissioner of Police

Usha Vs the Secretary to the

Mariyamma Vs the State of Tamil Nadu