Allowed

Kanageswari v. State of Tamil Nadu

Madras HC6 Oct 2020HCP/676/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court quashed a detention order under the Tamil Nadu Goondas Act because the detaining authority provided illegible copies of documents, violating the detenu's right to effective representation and defense.

What did the court decide?

The detention order Cr.M.P.No.02/Goonda/2020 dated 07.02.2020 is set aside; the detenu is directed to be released forthwith unless required for another case.

Kanageswari Vs State of Tamil Nadu — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Madras HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED:06.10.2020

¶3

Coram

¶4

The Hon'ble Mr. Justice M.M.SUNDRESH and The Hon'ble Mr. Justice D.KRISHNAKUMAR

¶5

H.C.P.No.676 of 2020

¶6

Kanageswari ... Petitioner
vs.
1. State of Tamil Nadu,
rep.by its Secretary to Government,
Home, Prohibition and Excise Department,
Fort St.George,
Chennai.
2. Office of the District Magistrate and
District Collector,
Thiruppur District,
Tiruppur.
3. The Superintendent of Police,
Thiruppur District,
Tiruppur.
4. The Superintendent of Prison,
Central Prison-II,
Puzhal, Chennai.

¶7

The Inspector of Police, Avinashi Police Station, Tiruppur District ... Respondents

¶8

Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a writ of Habeas Corpus calling for the records pertaining to the detenu Mr.Subash @ Udhayagopal Raja, S/o.Chinnathambi, who is detained under Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982 as GOONDA at Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai, by the second respondent herein vide his order in Cr.M.P.No.02/Goonda/2020, dated 07.02.2020, on the file of the second respondent herein and to quash the same and direct the respondents herein to produce the body of the detenu Mr.Subash @ Udhayagopal Raja,

¶9

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

¶10

S/o.Chinnathambi, aged about 35 years, before this Court and set him at liberty.

¶11

For Petitioner : Mr.P.Thinesh

¶12

For Respondents :^{Mr.R.Prathap Kumar,} Addl. Public Prosecutor

¶13

ORDER

¶14

[Order of the Court was made by M.M.SUNDRESH, J.]

¶15

The petitioner is the wife of Subash @ Udhaya Gopal Raja, S/o.Chinnathambi, aged about 35 years, who is the detenu. The detenu has been detained by the second respondent by his order in Cr.M.P.No.02/Goonda/2020, dated 07.02.2020, holding him to be a "GOONDA", as contemplated under Section 2(f) of Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982. The said order is under challenge in this Habeas Corpus Petition.

¶16

We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents and we have also perused the records carefully.

¶17

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. This deprived the detenu from making effective representation. Therefore, on this sole ground, the detention order is liable to be quashed.

¶18

4.On consideration of the submissions made on either side and upon perusal of the documents available on record, especially the seizure mahazar pertaining to the second adverse case at Page No.36 of the booklet, it is clear that the detaining authority, by providing illegible copies of the documents, has taken away the rights of detenu to effectively defend himself against his detention. Thus the impugned detention order is liable to be set aside on this ground.

¶19

In the result, the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and the order of detention Cr.M.P.No.02/Goonda/2020, dated 07.02.2020 passed by the second respondent is set aside. The

¶20

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

¶21

detenu, namely, Subash @ Udhaya Gopal Raja, S/o.Chinnathambi, aged about 35 years is directed to be released forthwith unless his detention is required in connection with any other case.

¶22

Sd/-
Assistant Registrar
//True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
mmi/ssm
To
1.The Secretary to Government,
Home, Prohibition and Excise Department,
Fort St.George, Chennai.
2.Office of the District Magistrate and
District Collector, Thiruppur District, Tiruppur.
3.The Superintendent of Police,
Thiruppur District,Tiruppur.
4.The Superintendent of Prison,
Central Prison-II, Puzhal, Chennai.
5.The Inspector of Police,
Avinashi Police Station,Tiruppur District
6.The Public Prosecutor,
High Court, Madras.
H.C.P. No.676 of 2020
VSNII(CO)
RMP(29/10/2020)

¶23

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

Kanageswari v. State of Tamil Nadu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kanageswari 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

R.Karthika Vs the State of Tamilnadu Rep.by

Kowsaliya Vs State of Tamil Nadu

Selvi Vs the State of Tamilnadu Rep.by Its

Manikandan Vs the State Represented by

Sumathi Vs State Rep.by

Iswarya Vs the Secretary to the Government