SRINIVASAN Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Thiru Srinivasan S/o. Ramamurthy has been detained under Sub Section 2 of Section 3 of the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Forest Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders and Slum Grabbers Act, 1982 (Tamil Nadu Act 14/82) by an order dated 11.11.2002 labeling him as Goonda, which is challenged in this writ petition before us.

(2.) The detenu has been involved in a case in Cr.No.187/2002 of Virudhunagar Bazar Police Station, for the offences under Sections 365 and 392 I.P.C, for which investigation is under process. The detenu once again involved in a case for the alleged incident that took place on 13.9.2002 at about 17.30 hours at Nallamanaickenpatti, within the limit of Kallakudi Police Station. It is pointed out that on 13.9.2002, one Ramesh, who was studying in KVS Middle School, Virudhunagar was abducted by the detenu, while he was returning from the school and that the detenu demanded money from his parents to release him and asked them to come with money. It seems, the boy's mother scolded the detenu, with unparliamentary words, which enraged the detenu and therefore, the boy was done to death by strangulating with a nylon rope on his neck and in order to escape from the legal punishment, the body was buried near the highway. It is further pointed out, that on a complaint by Thiru Subbu Reddy of Nallamanaickenpatti that his brother's son, Ramesh was found missing, a case was registered at Virudhunagar West Police Station in Cr.No.357/02 under the heading "Boy Missing", which was subsequently altered into 363 I.P.C. It seems the detenu, in order to screen his involvement, assisted the boy's parents in searching the boy, as if he is alive. But investigation revealed that the phone call to the parents of the deceased Ramesh, demanding money was received from a cellphone and on further investigation, it came to light that the cellphone was sold to an unknown person by name Thiru Solomon, who informed the police that he can identify the person, on seeing. Subsequently, as pointed out, Solomon identified the accused on seeing a video cassette recorded during the Grahapravesam of the house of Thiru Nagarajan, performed recently before the occurrence, which compelled and prompted the accused to surrender before the Head Quarter Deputy Tahsildar, Virudhunagar, and a statement was also recorded from him. On information from the Head Quarter Deputy Tahsildar, the Inspector of Police, secured the accused and further action was taken including the detention order also, which is impugned before us.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the remand order dated 27.9.2002 was not supplied to the detenu and therefore, he had lost the opportunity of making effective representation, to safeguard his right as contemplated under Article 22 (5) of the Constitution of India and in this view, the detention order is vitiated. We are unable to persuade ourselves to accept this contention in view of the fact that no remand order has been 'relied on', as seen from the grounds of detention. In paragraph-3 (ii) of the detention order, it is stated "the accused Srinivasan was produced before the Judicial Magistrate No.I Court, Virudhunagar on 27.9.2002 and lodged at Central Prison, Madurai." Therefore, according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the remand order dated 27.9.2002 is a document relied on and therefore, it ought to have been supplied to the detenu. Except, narrating the fact that the accused is in Central Prison as stated, that the detenu was produced before the Judicial Magistrate on 27.9.2002 and lodged at Central Prison, Madurai, the detaining authority has not relied upon the remand order anywhere in the grounds of detention. In this view, it is clear that the detaining authority has not relied upon any remand order dated 27.9.2002 and if at all it could be said it is only a referred document and the law does not mandate for the supply of the same. In this view, the first contention deserves to be rejected.