The Hindu : Collector, inspector to pay Rs. 1 lakh for illegal detention

Online edition of India's National Newspaper
Saturday, May 03, 2003

Southern States

Southern States - Tamil Nadu-Chennai

Collector, inspector to pay Rs. 1 lakh for illegal detention

By A. Subramani

CHENNAI MAY 2 . The Madras High Court expressed dismay at an illegal detention of a businessman for about four months, under the Goondas Act, by a police inspector who demanded Rs. 1 lakh from the victim, and directed the Prohibition and Excise Secretary, the Kancheepuram Collector and the inspector to pay him a compensation of Rs. 1 lakh within four weeks.

Setting at liberty B. Thameen Ansari of Tambaram here, a Division Bench comprising Justice P. Shanmugam and Justice S.K. Krishnan said: "The provisions of the Preventive Detention Act have been misused, misapplied and used for a wrong purpose... The personal rights of an innocent person have been seriously infringed... The Government has got a duty to repair the damage done by its officer to Mr. Ansari's rights".

The automobile repair workshop owner was picked up by the inspector, Prohibition and Enforcement Wing, at Anna Nagar in Chengalpattu, during midnight on November 16-17 on a `false' charge of bootlegging. The inspector demanded payment of Rs. 1 lakh from his relatives, failing which, he threatened, he would detain Mr. Ansari under the Goondas Act for one year. The inspector started using Mr. Ansari's cellphone also.

As the family members decided not to meet the illegal demand, Mr. Ansari was formally arrested and remanded to custody. His bail petitions were dismissed twice, and the Collector finally detained him under the Goondas Act without even disposing of a pre-detention representation submitted by Mr. Ansari's wife. As per the grounds of detention, he was a `bootlegger' and was arrested when he was carrying illicit liquor on the national highway opposite the Vandalur zoo. Meanwhile, the detenu's father, M.A. Badrudeen, moved a habeas corpus petition.

Pointing out `glaring defects' and describing it as an `extraordinary case of misuse of the provisions of the Preventive Detention Act', the judges said "a mechanical detention order had been passed, depriving the detenu of valuable fundamental right guaranteed to him".

"Even a cursory reading of the grounds of detention would make clear that there are no materials or basic facts for arriving at the subjective satisfaction to hold that the detenu is a bootlegger... The seizure mahazar and the confession statement are all attested by inspector J. Sivakumar and two constables. There are no independent witnesses. Except the confession statement, not an iota of evidence is available for linking the detenu with the crime. It is unbelievable that on a busy national highway, opposite the Vandalur zoo, no independent witnesses were available. On this slender and doubtful material, the whole case of preventive detention is based.''

"We are concerned with the conduct of the inspector in obtaining a signed confession statement contrary to Section 162 Cr.P.C, and it appears the blank paper signed by the detenu was utilised and the contents were filled up for the purpose of the case or the detenu was forced to sign on a marked place," the judges observed.

Citing the call summary obtained from Airtel, the Bench said the inspector had tampered with even the telephone bill, and the correct bill was furnished only after a legal notice was served.

`No application of mind'

On the Collector's role, the judges said, "we have no hesitation holding that the order of detention is illegal and passed with no basic materials available, in an arbitrary manner. The detaining authority would not have passed this order had he applied his mind to the facts of the case. Before the guaranteed and safeguarded rights of a person are taken away, there should be a proper application of mind to facts and law".

"We find that the constitutional and legal rights of the detenu had been invaded and the resultant detention cannot be washed away by the order of revocation, and therefore, even though we cannot technically set aside the order of detention, this is a fit case to award a monetary compensation for the deprivation of the detenu's personal liberty and the damage and the suffering he had undergone".

Printer friendly page
Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

Southern States

Stories in this Section

Open septic tank claims boy's life at Tambaram Sanatorium

`Nobody is bothered about water security'

Confusion over BSNL packages

Collector, inspector to pay Rs. 1 lakh for illegal detention