Back
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
G.S. SINGHVI AND SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA, JJ.
N. SENGODAN - APPELLANT
VERSUS
SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, HOME (PROHIBITION & EXCISE) DEPARTMENT, CHENNAI AND OTHERS - RESPONDENTS
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4815 OF 2013 (ARISING OUT OF SLP(C) NO.32704 OF 2010)
Decided on: 1-7-2013
(b) Constitution of India, Article 21 -Personal liberty is of the widest amplitude covering variety of rights- Its deprivation shall be only as per procedure prescribed in the Code and the Evidence Act conformable to the mandate of the Supreme Law, the Constitution- The State of Tamil Nadu was directed to pay Rs. 2 Lacs as cost (compensation) to the appellant for his wrongful detention and confinement.
Facts of the case
The appellant is ex-serviceman and a retired personnel of the Tamil Nadu Subordinate Police Services, the respondent no. 2 by name V. Jegannathan, is a former Inspector General and Commissioner of Police, Salem City and the 3rd respondent, Ramasamy, is former Inspector of Police, Fairlands Police Station, Salem City. The 4th respondent, E.Gopi, is former Inspector of Police, Sooramangalam Police Station, Salem City. Tamil Daily Malai Murasu dated 18th December, 1997, published a news item allegedly authored by the appellant. Based on the said news item, on 6th January, 1998, the 3rd respondent, Ramasamy, the then Inspector of Police, Fairlands Police Station, Salem City registered a case in Crime No.11/98 for offence under Section 3 of the Police (Incitement to Disaffection) Act, 1922 and Section 505(1)(b) of the Indian Penal Code. Further, on 7th January, 1998 the appellant was arrested by the 3rd respondent and remanded to judicial custody. He was remanded in judicial custody by the Judicial Magistrate No.V, Salem in connection with the above said case and lodged in Central Prison, Salem for a period of two month. While the appellant was confined in Central Prison, Salem the Superintendent, Central Prison, Salem served on him a detention order dated 9th January, 1998 passed by 2nd respondent the then Inspector General and Commissioner of Police, Salem City. By the said order, the Commissioner of Police, Salem City detained the appellant under "The Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drug-Offenders, Forest Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders and Slum-grabbers Act, 1982. Final report was submitted in criminal case which was accepted by the Court. The detention order was revoked by the Advisory Board and the appellant was released on 3rd March 1998. He was subjected to harassment by the respondent no. 3 during the period the appellant was remand prisoner. The appellant was unlawfully detained during the period 6.1.1998 to 3.3.1998. For the said wrongful detention and confinement, the appellant claimed Rs.10,00,000/- as compensation. In High Court both the Single Judge and the Division Bench dismissed the petition. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and allowed Rs. 2 lacs as costs (compensation) payable by the State of Tamil Nadu to the appellant.
Findings
The press statement dated 8th December, 1997 it is apparent that no incitement has been made by the appellant against the State Government nor the Police force has been instigated. In the present case nothing has been brought to the notice of the Court to prove that the appellant with intent to cause, fear or alarm to the public, or to any section of the public or to induce to commit an offence against the State Government or against the public tranquility, issued the above said press statement. There was no basis for leveling charge under Section 3 of the Police (Incitement to Disaffection) Act 1922 and Section 505(1)(b) of the IPC. the respondents have failed to bring on record the evidence to show that the appellant was engaged, or was making preparations for engaging, in any of his activities as a ’Goonda’ which may affect or are likely to affect adversely the maintenance of public order. There is nothing on record to suggest that the appellant, who either by himself or as a member of or leader of a gang habitually committed, or attempted to commit or abetted the commission of offence punishable under Chapter XVI or Chapter XVII or Chapter XXII of the Indian Penal Code. In fact, in absence of any such ingredients, the Advisory Board constituted under Section 10 of the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982 rightly held that there was no sufficient cause for detention of the appellant. For the same very reason the State Government revoked the order of detention.
Result : Appeal allowed
JUDGMENT
SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA, J.
Leave granted.
2. In this appeal the judgment dated 16th August, 2010 passed by the Division Bench of the Madras High Court in W.A. No.1426 of 2010 is under challenge. By the impugned judgment the Division Bench upheld the judgment dated 27th April, 2010 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P. No.1243 of 2003 and dismissed the appeal, affirming the finding recorded by the learned Single Judge. The learned Single Judge by his judgment dismissed the writ petition preferred by the appellant claiming the damages and praying for issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to pay him jointly and severally a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- for his alleged illegal detention and confinement.
3. The relevant facts of the case are as follows:
The appellant is an Ex-service man who served in the Indian Army for a period of seven years; later he joined in the Tamil Nadu Subordinate Police Services and retired from the service on 21st October, 1997 as Inspector of Police at Attur Police Station, Salem District. The 2nd respondent by name V. Jegannathan, is a former Inspector General and Commissioner of Police, Salem City and the 3rd respondent, Ramasamy, is former Inspector of Police, Fairlands Police Station, Salem City. The 4th respondent, E.Gopi, is former Inspector of Police, Sooramangalam Police Station, Salem City on whose complaint a case in Crime No.11/98 was registered against the appellant under Section 3 of the Police (Incitement to Disaffection) Act, 1922 and Section 505(1)(b) of the Indian Penal Code.
4. According to the appellant, he had served both the Indian Army and State Police Service with devotion and had the privilege to win the appreciation of his superior officers in both the capacities. He is a family man and his wife is working as Senior Lecturer in the Government Arts College, Salem. His sons having completed their seven year course in Medicine in Russia are doing their internship in the Government Kilpauk Medical College, Chennai. They are all living together as a happy close knit family sharing their joys and sorrows with one another. Besides, the appellant has wide relations as well as friends who are all having high esteem on him and his family. The version of the appellant is that after his retirement, he had the opportunity to realize the difficulties encountered by each and every member of the police force in Tamil Nadu and had voiced the merits of forming an Association through which demands of members of the police force could be legally made to set right the wrongs committed to them. Further, according to the appellant, he neither indulge in any act/acts leading to any resentment in the mind of any personnel in the police service nor was propagating anything seditious.
While so, Tamil Daily Malai Murasu dated 18th December, 1997, published a news item allegedly authored by the appellant. Based on the said news item, on 6th January, 1998, the 3rd respondent, Ramasamy, the then Inspector of Police, Fairlands Police Station, Salem City had registered a case in Crime No.11/98 for offence under Section 3 of the Police (Incitement to Disaffection) Act, 1922 and Section 505(1)(b) of the Indian Penal Code. Further, on 7th January, 1998 the appellant was arrested by the 3rd respondent and remanded to judicial custody. He was remanded in judicial custody by the Judicial Magistrate No.V, Salem in connection with the above said case and lodged in Central Prison, Salem for a period of two month. It is also alleged that while the appellant was confined in Central Prison, Salem the Superintendent, Central Prison, Salem served on him a detention order in C.M.P.No.04/Goonda/Salem City/98, dated 9th January, 1998 passed by 2nd respondent the then Inspector General and Commissioner of Police, Salem City. By the said order, the Commissioner of Police, Salem City detained the appellant under “The Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drug-Offenders, Forest Offenders, Goon
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
