AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
N. Dhinakar, J.—The petitioner is the brother of the detenu and he challenges the order of detention dated 17.1.2002 passed by the first respondent detaining his brother, Karmegam, the detenu herein, under the provisions of Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982, after he was identified as a "Goonda", since he had come to the adverse notice of the authorities on earlier occasions and that on 15.12.2001 he indulged in activities prejudicial to the maintenance of public order and that if he is allowed to remain at large, he will indulge in such further activities and that therefore, there is a compelling necessity to detail him.
We are not extracting the details of the grounds of detention, since both sides have agreed that the above Habeas Corpus Petition has to be considered and allowed on the following short ground only in view of the fact that the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority is not questioned.
The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the documents furnished to the detenu are incomplete and that therefore, he was not able to make an effective representation. In support of his plea, he relies upon page No.50 of the booklet, which is a mahazar.
We have perused the grounds of detention, wherein the detaining authority has relied upon the said mahazar by stating that at 10.00 a.m. on 15.12.2001, an aruval, an iron ring and a purse containing a cash of Rs.300/- as well as a wrist watch were recovered under a Cover of mahazar attested by two independent witnesses. Though the detaining authority has relied on the said mahazar, the copy served to the detenu is incomplete, since several lines are found missing in column 2 of the said mahazar. The contention of the counsel that, in view of the incomplete document, he could not understand as to what the mahazar contains and therefore, could not make an effective representation, cannot be easily brushed aside on the above facts.
We have also perused the original and it shows that several lines, which we have noted in the English version, are found missing in the vernacular version of the mahazar and we are at a loss to understand as to how the detaining authority passed the order of detention on the basis of an incomplete record. The petitioner was certainly prejudiced on account of the non-furnishing of the document asked for. We, therefore, set aside the order of detention.
In the result, the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed. The detenu is directed to be set at liberty forthwith unless he is required in connection with any other case.