IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 6.1.2009 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ELIPE DHARMA RAO AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.TAMILVANAN Habeas Corpus Petitions No.1471 to 1473 of 2008 S.Prabakaran .. Petitioner in HCP.No.1471/2008 V.Dinesh .. Petitioner in HCP.No.1472/2008 Thirugnanam @ Thirugnana Sambantham .. Petitioner in HCP.No.1473/2008 Vs. 1.The State of Tamil Nadu, rep.by its Secretary, Home, Prohibition & Excise Department, Fort St.George, Chennai-600009. 2.The District Magistrate and District Collector, Ariyalur District, Ariyalur. .. Respondents in all the H.C.Ps. * * * All the above Habeas Corpus petitions are filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. H.C.P.No.1471 of 2008 has been filed praying to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus, to call for the records pursuant to order of detention, passed in Cr.M.P.No.23 of 2008, dated 26.6.2008 of the 2nd respondent and set aside the same and direct the respondents to produce the body of the petitioner namely Mr.Prabakaran, S/o.Mr.Sivasami, now confined in the Central Prison, Tiruchirapalli, before this Court and set him at liberty. H.C.P.No.1472 of 2008 has been filed praying to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus, to call for the records pursuant to the order of detention passed in Cr.M.P.No.22 of 2008, dated 26.6.2008 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ of the 2nd respondent and set aside the same and direct the respondents to produce the body of the petitioner namely Mr.Dinesh, S/o.Mr.Velusami, now confined in the Central Prison, Trichirapalli, before this Court and to set him at liberty. H.C.P.No.1473 of 2008 has been filed praying to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus, to call for the records pursuant to the order of detention passed in Cr.M.P.No.21 of 2008, dated 26.6.2008 of the 2nd respondent and to set aside the same and direct the respondents herein, to produce the body of the petitoner namely Mr.Thirugnanm @ Thirugnana Sambantham, S/o.Mr.Muthuvel, now confined in the Central Prison, Trichirapalli, before this Court and set him at liberty. * * * For petitioners in all the H.C.Ps. : Mr.Abudu Kumar Rajarathinam for Mr.K.Rajasekaran For respondents in all the H.C.Ps. : Mr.N.R.Elango, Addl.P.P. * * * COMMON ORDER ELIPE DHARMA RAO, J. All the petitioners were slapped with the detention orders, branding them as 'goondas' and they are challenging the detention orders by filing these Habeas Corpus petitions. Since all the petitions are inter-connected with each other and are arising from out of the same background, they were heard in common and are being disposed of by this common order. 2. All the petitioners, along with others, are alleged to be the accused in Cr.No.130 of 2008 of Meensuripatti Police Station, Ariyalur District, for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 341, 324, 326, 307 and 302 r/w.120(B) IPC. The ground case came to be registered pursuant to five murders committed at a stretch by the petitioners, joining hands with other accused in retaliation to the murder of one Desingubalan. It is alleged that there had been an unsettled enmity and animosity between the families of Kasinathan and Desingubalan and they had a vow to murder the counter party and in this backdrop, the above said Desingubalan was done to death by the rival group. It is https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ alleged that all the accused persons, have conspired together to take revenge against the persons who are responsible for the murder of Desingubalan and in furtherance of such conspiracy, on 16.5.2008 at about 9.00 hours, all the accused persons hidden in front of the house of one Balusami and attacked the opposite party with veecharuvals. It is alleged that the accused Ravi alias Ravichandran and Thirugnanam (petitioner in H.C.P.No.1473 of 2008) jointly cut one of the deceased persons Suresh with knives; that accused Palanisami and Prabhakaran (petitioner in H.C.P.No.1471 of 2008) jointly cut another deceased Prabu with patta knife; that accused Rajadurai and Dinesh (petitioner in H.C.P.Nos.1472 of 2008) assaulted one Mahalingam with Veecharuval and patta knife. After committing five murders at a stretch, one of the accused persons namely Ramesh punched the head of Dharmalingam on a trident in front of Kaliamman temple and the head of another deceased Prabu was thrown at the back of the Kaliamman temple and in front of the house of Ramesh by accused Palanisamy. Insofar as the petitioner in H.C.P.No.1473 of 2008, by name Thirugnanam alias Thirugnana Sambandam, an adverse case registered in Cr.No.184/2001 of Meensuritti Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 457 and 380 IPC has also been reported. 3. Though, neither the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners nor the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, have informed us, we are able to recollect from our memory that earlier the accused Ramesh has challenged his detention order dated 17.6.2008 by filing H.C.P.No.1118 of 2008 and the accused Ravi @ Ravichandran has also challenged his detention order by filing H.C.P.No.1119 of 2008 and this Division Bench, by orders both dated 22.8.2008 has dismissed both the said petitions, with the following observation: "The gruesome activity of the accused in committing five murders at a stretch in broad day light sent shocking waves in the entire locality and considering the gravity of the entire situation and since the recourse to normal criminal law would not have the desired effect and to prevent the detenu from involving in such activities, which are prejudicial to the public order, the impugned order of detention came to be passed, wherein we are unable to find any illegality or irregularity, so as to cause our interference. If the accused of this kind of offences are let out freely, it will definitely cause great prejudice to the maintenance of public order. Hence, the HCP is liable to be dismissed." https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 4. For the same reasoning, all these Habeas Corpus Petitions are also liable to be dismissed. But, since the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners has argued the matters at length and in order to give a quietus to the issue on hand, we now proceed to deal with the points urged by the learned counsel for the petitioners. 5. Mr.Abudu Kumar Rajarathinam, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would strenuously argue that the Sponsoring Authority has not placed all the relevant materials before the Detaining Authority, particularly about the extension of the remand by the Court and on this ground of lack of material before the Detaining Authority to express his awareness that the detenus were in remand on the date on which the impugned orders were passed, all the above petitions are entitled to be allowed. 6. In support of his arguments, the learned counsel for the petitioners would rely on the following judgments: 1.BALARAMAN vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU [1994-1-L.W. (Crl.) 266], 2.RAJA vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU [(2007) 2 MLJ (Crl.) 639] and 3.V.C.MOHAN vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS [(2002) 3 SCC 451]. 7. In the first judgment cited above, a Division Bench of this Court has held: "On the short ground of lack of material before the Detaining Authority to express his awareness that the detenu was in remand on the date on which the impugned order was passed, petitioner is bound to succeed." 8. In the second judgment cited above, another Division Bench of this Court has held as follows: "It is well settled that when an order of detention is passed against a person in custody, the Detaining Authority must show its awareness to the fact of subsisting custody of the detenu and take that factor into account while passing the detention order. It appears no material was placed before the Detaining Authority to show the fact of subsisting custody of the detenu." https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ "Remand Extension Order is a vital material which the Detaining Authority ought to have perused and satisfied itself as to the fact of subsisting custody of the detenu. Since the awareness of the Detaining Authority as to the subsisting custody of the detenu is not supported by any materials on record, nor the copy of the remand extension orders furnished to the detenu, the detention order is liable to be quashed." 9. In the third judgment cited above, a Three Judge Bench of the Honourable Apex Court, on facts, has held that 'non- placement of relevant material before the detaining authority by sponsoring authority, rendered the detention order illegal and the enormity or gravity of the alleged offence committed by the detenu is irrelevant.' 10. On the other hand, Mr.N.R.Elango, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, taking us through the paper books, has argued that all the mandatory requirements of law have been strictly complied with and there are no grounds to interfere with the impugned orders of detention by this Court and would pray to dismiss all these petitions. 11. To find out the veracity of the arguments advanced on the part of the petitioners, we have gone through the entire materials placed on record. From page No.5 of the paper book, we are able to find the affidavit filed by the Inspector of Police, Meensuritti Police Station before the District Collector, praying for the order of detention under Act 14/1982. It has been averred in the said affidavit that the petitioners remand had been extended to 13.6.2008 and 27.6.2008 respectively, further enclosing the copies of extension of remands. Page No.118 bears the English version of the requisition of the Inspector of Police, Meensurity Police Station to the Judicial Magistrate, Jayamkondam, requesting remand of the accused Palanisamy, Dinesh, Rajadurai, Pirabakaran, Ramesh and Thirugnanam and Page No.120 is the Tamil version of the same. Page No.121 bears the order of the learned Judicial Magistrate, dated 16.5.2008, ordering remand of the accused till 30.5.2008. Further, in Para No.5 of the grounds of detention, the Detaining Authority has stated that he is aware that the accused are in remand in Meensuritti P.S. Cr.No.130/2008. When such is the position that the Sponsoring Authority has submitted all the relevant particulars and documents before the Detaining Authority, including about the remand of the accused and its extension on a further date, it cannot be said that there is any lack of material https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ before the Detaining Authority to express his awareness that the detenus were in remand on the date on which the impugned orders of the detention were passed. Therefore, all the above judgments cited and relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioners have no application to the facts of the case. 12. The other ground urged by the learned counsel for the petitioners is that all the relied on documents, particularly the remand extension orders, were not supplied to the detenus and thus the orders of detention get vitiated on this sole ground. In support of his contentions, the learned counsel for the petitioners would rely on a Division Bench judgment of this Court in BEPARI SALEEM vs. THE STATE OF TAMIL NADU [2005 (2) CTC 469], wherein it has been held: "The remand extension order dated 2.9.2004, having been relied on and considered by the detaining authority while passing the order of detention, the copy of the same must have been furnished to the detenu along with the grounds or in any event not later than 5 days and in the exceptional circumstances for reasons to be recorded in writing, not later than 15 days from the date of his detention. It is also clear that all such materials must be furnished to him in the language which he understands and the failure to do either of the two things would amount to breach of the two duties cast on the detaining authority under Article 22(5) of the Constitution. In the case before us, the paper book supplied to the detenu does not contain copy of the remand extension order dated 2.9.2004 either in English or in the language (Telugu) known to the detenu, however the same was supplied both in English and in Telugu version only on 20.10.2004. Though the learned Additional Public Prosecutor contended that copy of the order dated 2.9.2004 was subsequently supplied to the detenu, the said order having been made a day prior to the detention order dated 3.9.2004 and the same having been relied on by the detaining authority, and the relied upon document having been supplied after 38 days, which is beyond the prescribed period, in the light of the principles laid down in Ibrahim Ahmad Batti case [1983 SCC (Cri) 66], the detention order has to be quashed on the ground of violation of safeguards contained in Article 22(5) of the Constitution." https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 13. The learned counsel for the petitioners would also rely on a judgment of the Honourable Apex Court in UNION OF INDIA vs. RANU BHANDARI [2008 (4) CTC 839], wherein the Honourable Apex Court has held as follows: "... when a detention order is passed, all the material relied upon by the Detaining Authority in making such an order, must be supplied to the detenu to enable him to make an effective representation against the detention order in compliance with Article 22(5) of the Constitution, irrespective of whether he had knowledge of the same or not. These have been recognised by this Court as the minimum safeguards to ensure that preventive detention laws, which are an evil necessity, do not become instruments of oppression in the hands of the concerned authorities or to avoid criminal proceedings which would entail a proper investigation." 14. The entire stray of the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the remand extension orders were not furnished to the detenus and thus it has impaired their right of making effective representation. There cannot be any doubt that all the relied upon documents are to be supplied to the detenus in the language known to them. In the case on hand, a thorough perusal of the grounds of detention would reveal that the Detaining Authority has not placed his reliance either on the remand or its extension. Therefore, being not a relied upon document, no duty or obligation is cast upon the authorities to supply the copy of the remand extension order. Further more, no prejudice of whatsoever, in not furnishing the copy of the remand extension order, though is not a relied upon document, has been brought to our notice on the part of the detenus. Therefore, the above judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioners also do not augment the case of the petitioners. 15. No other grounds, much less the ones to be considered, are urged before us. A thorough perusal of the entire materials placed on record would show that the authorities have scrupulously followed the mandatory requirements of law, while clamping the orders of detention on the detenus and the copies of all the relied upon documents were also promptly furnished to them. In the entire process, we do not find any illegality or irregularity, so as to cause our interference into the impugned orders of detention. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Viewing from any angle, there is no merit in any of the above petitions and accordingly, all these Habeas Corpus Petitions are dismissed. Rao Sd/- Assistant Registrar / True Copy / Sub. Assistant Registrar To 1.The Secretary to the Government of Tamil Nadu, Home, Prohibition & Excise Department, Fort St.George, Chennai-600009. 2.The District Magistrate and District Collector, Ariyalur District, Ariyalur 3. The Joint Secretary (Home) Public and Excise (XV) Department, Fort St. George, Chennai-9. 4. The Superintendent of Central Prison, Tiruchirapalli. 5. The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras. 3 ccs to Mr.K.Rajasekaran, Advocate, SR.277 ksj (co) dv/19.1. Common order in H.C.P.Nos.1471 to 1473 of 2008 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/