Chandran vs The commissioner of Police, Madras City and Another

Arunachalam, J.—Petitioner Chandran has been detained as a goonda under Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982, in pursuance of an order of

detention dated 8.6.1995, passed by the first Respondent, Commissioner of Police, ''Madras City, with a view to preventing him from acting in any

manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order.

It will be totally unnecessary to state the facts in detail, which led to the passing of the impugned order, for this habeas corpus petition will have

to be allowed on the short ground of relied upon material not having been supplied to the detenu.

Mr. A.K.S. Thahir, Petitioner''s learned Counsel, brought to our notice a part of the grounds of detention, which reads as hereunder:

The Inspector of Police also examined Tvl. Balaji and Chandran and recorded their confession statements. The Inspector of Police examined the

witnesses and recorded their statements.

On that basis, he submitted that the statement of the detenu admittedly recorded had not been furnished to him. While countering this argument,

Mr. I. Subramanian, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, contended that the confession statement of the detenu was not relied upon by the

Detaining Authority and in such circumstances it cannot be stated that non-furnishing of the said statement had resulted in denial of a right to make

an effective representation against the order of detention. In support of his plea, he relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in S.L.P.(Crl)

No. 2059/95 dated 4.8.1995, wherein the Supreme Court has stated as hereunder:

The first contention urged by Shri Venkataramani is that the copy of the confession statement of the Petitioner that was recorded on September

29, 1994 by the Investigating Officer after the arrest of the Petitioner in connection with the prohibition case was not furnished to the Petitioner in

spite of his asking for it and as a result he was denied the right to make an effective representation against his detention. Although in the High Court

judgment the date of the said statement is mentioned as September 16, 1994 the exact date is September 29, 1994. The High Court has rejected

the said contention. We are also unable to accept the contention in as much as the grounds of detention do not show that the Detaining Authority

has placed reliance on the said statement of the Petitioner for arriving at the satisfaction for passing the impugned order of detention. In these

circumstances, it cannot be said that the non-furnishing of the said statement has resulted in denial to right to make an effective representation

against the order of detention.

We have carefully considered the rival contentions on the basis of the factual material placed before us. In the case decided by the Supreme Court,

they were unable to accept a similar contention inasmuch as the grounds of detention did not show that the Detaining Authority had placed reliance

on the statement made by the detenu therein for arriving at his subjective satisfaction. In the instant case, it is very very clear that reliance had been

placed on the statement of Chandran, the detenu herein, as well. The confession statement of Balaji has been supplied to the detenu and so the

statements of all the witnesses examined by the Inspector of Police. After narrating the details of statements recorded from several persons, the

Detaining Authority has stated as hereunder:

Hence I am satisfied that Thiru Chandran is habitually committing crime and also acted in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order.

In another portion of the ground of detention, the Detaining Authority has stated as follows:

On the materials placed before me I am satisfied that the said Thiru Chandran is a goonda and that there is a compelling necessity....

The litmus test about reliance having been placed on the statement of Chandran is highlighted by the supply of the confession statement of Balaji

twice over. Instead of supplying the statements of Balaji and Chandran, the statement of Balaji alone stood repetitively supplied. Probably a

mistake had been committed by the Detaining Authority or those in charge of supply of documents. However, such mistake cannot be allowed to

prejudice the case of the detenu. Once we are satisfied that reliance was in fact placed by the Detaining Authority on the statement of Chandran,

non-supply of the said statement to the detenu would suffice to infer prejudice which had prevented the detenu from making an effective and

purposeful representation. The law laid down by the Supreme Court is certainly distinguishable on the fact situation, herein.

The impugned order of detention shall stand quashed. Detenu is directed to be set at liberty forthwith, unless his detention is otherwise required.

This habeas corpus petition is allowed.