AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
A. Selvam, J.—This Habeas Corpus Petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to call for records relating to detention order passed in Cr.M.P.No. 01/2016 (VIDEO PIRATE) dated 11.01.2016 by the detaining authority, who has been arrayed as second respondent herein against the detenu by name Prakash, Son of Senraj and quash the same.
The Inspector of Police, Virudhunagar Video Piracy Cell Unit as sponsoring authority has submitted an affidavit to the detaining authority, wherein it is stated that the detenu has involved in the following adverse case:
"Crime No. 146 of 2015 on the file of Coimbatore VPC registered under Sections 51(a)read with 63, 52(A) read with 68, 65 of Copyright Act, 1957 and under Section 511 of the Indian Penal Code".
Further it is stated in the affidavit that on 30.12.2015 one Moovendran as de facto complainant has given a complaint against the detenu in Virudhunagar Video Piracy Cell Unit and the same has been registered in Crime No. 252 of 2015 under Sections 51(a)(1), (b)(1) read with 63, 63-B and 52A read with 68A of Copyright Act, 1957 and Section 292-A of the Indian Penal Code and ultimately requested the detaining authority to invoke Act 14 of 1982 against the detenu.
The detaining authority viz., second respondent herein after considering the averments made in the affidavit and other connected documents has derived subjective satisfaction to the effect that the detenu is a habitual offender and thereby branded him as ''Video Pirate'' by way of passing the impugned detention order and in order to quash the same, the present Habeas Corpus Petition has been filed by the father of the detenu as petitioner.
On the side of the respondents a detailed counter has been filed, wherein it has been contended to the effect that all the averments made in the petition are false and ultimately prayed to dismiss the same.
The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has contended that on the side of the detenu three representations are submitted and the same have not been disposed of without delay and therefore the detention order in question is liable to be quashed.
The learned Additional Public Prosecutor has contended that the representations submitted on the side of the detenu are duly disposed of without delay and therefore the detention order in question does not call for any interference.
On the side of the respondents, a proforma has been submitted wherein it has been clearly stated that with regard to first representation in between Column Nos. 7 to 9, four clear working days are available and in between Column Nos. 12 and 13, twelve clear working days are available, with regard to second representation in between Column Nos. 7 to 9, two clear working days are available and in between Column Nos. 12 and 13, twelve clear working days are available and with regard to third representation in between Column Nos. 7 to 9, two clear working days are available and in between Column Nos. 12 and 13, eight clear working days are available and no explanation has been given on the side of the respondents with regard to such delay in disposing of the representations submitted on the side of the detenu and that itself would affect his rights guaranteed under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India and therefore the detention order in question is liable to be quashed.
In fine, this Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and the detention order passed in Cr.M.P.No. 01/2016 (VIDEO PIRATE) dated 11.01.2016 by the second respondent/detaining authority is quashed and consequently the respondents are directed to set the detenu viz., Prakash, Son of Senraj at liberty forthwith, unless he is required to be incarcerated in connection with any other case.