A Habeas Corpus petition was allowed because the impugned detention order relied on a confession statement not furnished to the detenu, depriving him of the right to make an effective representation. The detention order was set aside.
Impugned detention order dated 29.08.2015 set aside; detenu to be released forthwith unless required in other cases.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 15.03.2016
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR . JUSTICE M.JAICHANDREN
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.NAGAMUTHU
1.The State of Tamil Nadu rep by its Secretary to Government Home, Prohibition and Excise Department Secretariat, Chennai 600 009.
Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus, to call for the records of the 2nd respondent vide his Order Memo No. / BCDFGISSSV No.832/2015 dated 29.08.2015 and to produce the body of the detenu viz., Nagaraj, aged about 25 years, S/o Kasi, who is presently detained in the Central Prison, Chennai, before this Court and set him at liberty.
For Respondents : Mr.A.N.Thambidurai
Addl. Public Prosecutor
This Habeas Corpus Petition has been filed by the father of the detenu, to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus, calling for the records relating to the impugned order passed by the 2nd respondent in BCDFGISSSV No.832/2015 dated 29.08.2015, detaining the detenu, namely Nagaraj, aged about 25 years, S/o Kasi, under Section 3(1) of the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Forest Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders, Sand Offenders,
Sexual Offenders, Slum Grabbers and Video Pirates Act, 1982 (Tamil Nadu Act 14/1982), branding him as a “Goonda” as contemplated u/s 2(f) of the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982, and to quash the same, produce him before this Court and to set him at liberty.
Sd/Assistant Registrar(AS)
//True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
To
1.The Secretary to Government,
Home, Prohibition and Excise Department,
Secretariat, Chennai 600 009.
2.The Commissioner of Police,
Veppery, Chennai 600 007.
3.The Additional Public Prosecutor,
Madras High Court, Chennai.
4.The Superintendent of Police,
Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai.
5.The Joint Secretary to Government,
Public(Law & Order),
Fort Saint George, Chennai - 9.
6.The District Collector,
Chennai.
H.C.P.No.2263 of 2015
ca(CO)
srg(05/04/2016)
2 issues framed by the court
Whether a detention order passed without furnishing the confession statement relied upon violates principles of natural justice and renders the order invalid.
Whether the failure to provide the detenu a copy of the confession statement denied him the opportunity to make an effective representation.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Chandran v. The Commissioner of Police, Madras City & anotherReferred¶15
Chandran v. The Commissioner of Police, Madras City & another [1996(1) Crimes 306]
Mariammal v. State of Tamil NaduReferred¶15
Mariammal v. State of Tamil Nadu [Law (Mad)-2003-12-47]
2 provisions across 2 enactments
The State of Tamil Nadu
Father of Nagaraj
Nagaraj
M. Jaichandren
S. Nagamuthu
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
