MARUTHU PANDI Vs. ADMINISTRATIVE EXECUTIVE MAGISTRATE -CUM- DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF POLICE (L&O) MADURAI CITY MADURAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner in Crl.RC(MD)No.116 of 2017, the petitioner in Crl.RC(MD)No.277 of 2017 and the petitioner in Crl.RC(MD)No.320 of 2017 have challenged the order of the first respondent passed in M.C.No.767/Ni-Se.Na & Ka.Thu.Aa/Ma.Maa/2016, dated 24.11.2016, M.C.No.749/Ni-Se.Na & Ka.Thu.Aa/Ma.Maa/2016, dated 13.03.2017, M.C.No.976/Ni-Se.Na & Ka.Thu.Aa/Ma.Maa/2016, dated 24.03.2017, under Section 122(1)(b) r/w. 117 Cr.P.C., detaining the son of the petitioner in Crl.RC(MD)No.116 of 2017 and other petitioners respectively in violation of the terms of the bond executed for keeping peace on involvement of the criminal case registered by the 2nd respondent. While the said bail bond is in force and while the detenue were confined in Central Prison, Madurai, the impugned order has been passed against the petitioner in Crl.RC(MD)No.277 of 2017 stating that 3 witnesses were examined in the presence of the petitioner on 13.03.2017 and the petitioner in Crl.RC(MD)No.320 of 2017 that 3 witnesses were examined in the presence of the petitioner on 24.03.2017 by the first respondent herein respectively and an opportunity to cross-examine the said witnesses and to produce the witness and documents were given to the petitioners, but the petitioners have not chosen to cross-examine the those witnesses and also to produce any witnesses or documents. No witnesses were examined in the presence of the detenue in Crl.RC(MD)No.116 of 2017, but on the basis of the report given by the 2nd respondent, the first respondent has passed the impugned order of detention, dated 24.11.2016 in respect of the son of the petitioner in Crl.RC(MD)No.116 of 2017.

(2.) The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that the impugned proceedings passed by the first respondent is per se illegal and arbitrary in law in the facts and circumstances of the case and the first respondent did not record the grounds for coming to the conclusion that the petitioners committed breach of peace; that the first respondent without issuing any notice or giving opportunity to the petitioners passed the impugned order in violation of the principles of natural justice; that the first respondent failed to supply all documents mentioned in the impugned order and therefore, the petitioners cannot able to submit effective representation; that the first respondent is not competent authority to pass the impugned orders of detention; that the Right to Life guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India is violated against the petitioners; that the first respondent did not give an opportunity to prove the innocence of the petitioners and the first respondent failed to follow the mandatory procedures while passing the impugned orders; and the petitioners wee denied to cross-examine the witnesses and did not communicate the particulars and statement of witnesses and not given prior intimation or notice to the petitioners herein.

(3.) The learned State Public Prosecutor assisted by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, on instructions, would contend that there is no violation in the proceedings and the same is passed after complying with all the requirements as per law and the first respondent applied his mind and gone through the entire records and after complete satisfaction, the impugned orders were passed against the detenues and sufficient opportunities were given to the detenues for the show-cause notice and all the particulars along with witness details were duly communicated and the impugned orders were passed by following the lawful procedures laid by the Criminal Procedure Code and the first respondent is the competent to initiate action under Section 110 of Cr.P.C., as per G.O.Ms.No.181 Home (Cts VI-A) Department, dated 25.02.2014 and also as per the Circular Memorandum in R.C.No.225463/A&R- 2/2014, dated 19.06.2014 of the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Law and Order, Tamil Nadu.