Mohamed Kasim @ Bahurudin vs The Secretary to Government Prohibition and Excise Department and The Commissioner of Police

P.D. Dinakaran, J.—The petitioner, father of the detenu, filed this habeas corpus petition against the order dated 15.3.2005 passed by the Commissioner of Police, Chennai, directing the preventive detention of one Dowlath Rahuman, son of Mohamed Kasim, branding him as a Video Pirate u/s 3(1) of the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Forest Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders, Slum Grabbers and Video Pirates Act, 1982.

Alleging that the detenu habitually committing the offences against Copy Right Act, 1957, and also infringing copy rights in relation to the cinematograph films under the Copy Right Act, 1957, the Commissioner of Police, the second respondent herein passed the impugned detention order dated 15.3.2005.

The main contention of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is that the representation made on behalf of the detenu under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India, has not been placed before the detaining authority while passing the impugned order of detention.

Even though initially the learned Government Advocate sought time to verify as to whether the representation said to have been sent on behalf of the petitioner by registered post with acknowledgement due was received or not, after verification, it is fairly reported that the representation though received, was not placed before the detaining authority, which is against Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India. In this view of the matter, the detention order is liable to be quashed.

In the result, the habeas corpus petition is allowed. The order of detention dated 15.3.2005 is set aside. The respondents are directed to release the detenu from custody forthwith, unless his custody is required in any other case or cause.