[Order of the Court was made by M.JAICHANDREN,J] This Habeas Corpus Petition has been filed, by the wife of the detenu, namely, Murugan, aged about 29 years, son of Ayyanar, praying that this Court may be pleased to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus, to call for the records, in 614/BCDFGISSSV/2016, dated 29.06.2016, passed by the second respondent, detaining the detenu under Section 3(1) of the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Cyber Law Offenders, Drug Offenders, Forest Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders, Sand Offenders, Slum Grabbers and Video Pirates Act, 1982 (Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982), branding him as a Goonda, in the Central Prison II, Puzhal, Chennai-66 and to quash the same and to direct the Respondents to produce the body of the detenu and to set him at liberty, forthwith.
2. We have heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the State and we have also perused the records, carefully.
3. Though, several grounds had been raised by the petitioner, while challenging the impugned order of detention, dated 29.06.2016, the learned counsel, appearing on behalf of the petitioner, had submitted that, in the booklet furnished to the detenu, Page Nos.101 to 104, which is the statement of witnesses, in Crime No.364 of 2016, on the file of the R4, Soundarapandiyanar Angadi Police Station, are found to be illegible. Hence, the detenu had been prevented from making an effective representation against the impugned order of detention, dated 29.06.2016. Thus, the detention order is vitiated and the same is liable to be quashed.
4. The said submission made by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, had not been refuted by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the respondents.
5. A perusal of the booklet supplied to the detenu would show that Page Nos.101 to 104, which is the statement of witnesses in Crime No.364 of 2016, on the file of the R4, Soundarapandiyanar Angadi Police Station, are found illegible. As such, we find that the furnishing of the illegible copy would prejudice the detenu in making an effective representation against the impugned order of detention, dated 29.06.2016. Therefore, we are inclined to set aside the impugned detention order.
6.Accordingly, the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and the impugned detention order, dated 29.06.2016, passed by the second respondent, is set aside. The detenu is directed to be released forthwith, unless his presence is required in connection with any other case.
[M.J.,J.] [T.M.,J.] 25.01.2017 gpa To
1.The Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Fort St.George, Chennai-600 009
2.The Commissioner of Police Greater Chennai Police Office of Commissioner of Police Chennai 600 007
3.The Superintendent of Prisons Central Prison II Puzhal Chennai 600 066
4.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.
M.JAICHANDREN,J.
AND T.MATHIVANAN, J.
gpa H.C.P.No.1515 of 2016 25.01.2017 http://www.judis.nic.in