Back
2007 Supreme(Mad) 3095
High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.D. DINAKARAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R. REGUPATHI
P. Navaneetha Krishnan
Versus
The Commissioner of Police, Greater Chennai, Egmore, Chennai & Others
Habeas Corpus Petition No.1306 of 2007
Decided On : 21-09-2007
For the Petitioner:A.E. Lakshmi Narayanan, Advocate. For the Respondents: N.R. Elango, Additional Public Prosecutor.
The main legal point established is the duty of the Magistrate to ensure the legality of detention, the necessity for proper application of mind in passing remand orders, and the principle of Actus Curiae Neminem Gravabit.
Headnote:
Habeas Corpus - Remand Order - Sections 147, 148, 341, 302 IPC, Section 120B IPC - Section 309 IPC - Section 167 Cr.P.C - Actus Curiae Neminem Gravabit - Elumalai vs. State of Tamil Nadu - G.K. Moopanar v. State - T.Mohan, etc. v. State by Inspector of Police, CBCID, Madras
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner filed a Habeas Corpus Petition seeking the release of the detenu, his brother, who was remanded in a case involving offences under Sections 147, 148, 341, 302 IPC, and Section 120B IPC. The petitioner alleged that the detenu was kept in illegal confinement without a valid order of remand.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the detenu was not produced before the Magistrate for an extended period, and the remand orders were made without proper application of mind. However, the court held that a valid remand order was in force as of the date of the hearing, and the detenu was not in illegal detention.
Issues: The issues involved the validity of the remand orders, the duty of the Magistrate to ensure the legality of detention, and the effect of subsequent valid remand orders on earlier defects.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the importance of the Magistrate's duty to ensure the legality of detention and the necessity for proper application of mind in passing remand orders. It also highlighted the principle of Actus Curiae Neminem Gravabit, stating that the act of the court should not prejudice any individual.
Final Decision: The court held that the detenu was in valid remand and not in illegal detention, and the subsequent valid remand order cured the earlier defect.
R. Regupathi, J.
The petitioner herein is the brother of the detenu by name P.Kanagaraj, who is confined in Central Prison, Coimbatore. He has preferred this Habeas Corpus Petition to call for the records relating to the remand of detenu Kanagaraj in PRC No.49 of 2003 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, Tambaram, quash the same and consequently direct the respondents to set him at liberty.
2. It is stated that the detenu surrendered before Judicial Magistrate No.1, Vellore, on 23.07.2004 and he was remanded to judicial custody for 15 days in respect of a case registered in Crime No.378 of 2003 for offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 341, 302 IPC. read with Section 120B IPC. The investigation of the said case was over, final report was filed and the learned Magistrate had also taken cognizance of the offence alleged against the accused in PRC No.49 of 2003. The detenu has been arrayed as A-19 in the said case amongst 21 accused. The case has not been committed to the Court of sessions and still, it is pending at PRC stage. The detenu was being produced before court and periodically, the remand was extended till 04.08.2006. Thereafter, the detenu was not produced before court for further extension and mechanically, without application of mind, the learned Judicial Magistrate adjourned the hearings without insisting for production of the detenu. It is alleged that the Investigating Officer/Respondent No.3 never filed any requisition for extension of remand and the detenu is kept in illegal confinement without any valid order of remand. Since the detenu has been deprived of his personal liberty as a result of violation of the procedure established by law, the petitioner seeks in this Habeas Corpus Petition, dated 31.08.2007, for setting the detenu at liberty.
3. Per contra, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, while admitting that the detenu was not produced before the learned Magistrate between 04.08.2006 and 30.08.2007, would however submit that, on 12.09.2007, he was produced before the Judicial Magistrate, Tambaram, and his remand has been extended till 21.09.2007, thus, as on date, a valid remand order is in force as against the detenu. He pointed out that the detenu was remanded initially as per the orders passed by the learned Magistrate and from time to time, his remand was being extended, but, due to non-availability of transport/police escort and other exigencies, the detenu could not be produced before court during the said period. It is submitted that, apart from the present case, the petitioner is involved in two other cases, of which, one ended in conviction on 29.08.2005 for offences punishable under Sections 148, 449, 341 and 302 IPC., whereby, he was sentenced to undergo life imprisonment. Though he was granted bail and sentence was suspended by this Court, sureties were not executed as on date and therefore, he is a convict prisoner. In the second case against the detenu, ie., Crime 320 of 2002, for offences punishable under Sections 392 and 397 IPC read with Section 120B IPC., on the file of the Inspector of Police, Trichengode Police Station, trial of the case is pending on the file of the Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court, Namakkal. In this case, though the detenu was earlier enlarged on bail, on his surrender for some other case, he has been produced through P.T. warrant and remanded to judicial custody. By adverting to the above aspects, it is highlighted that the detenu is not only concerned with the case in PRC No.49 of 2003 but also two other cases as stated above i.e., in one case, he is a life convict and in the other case, under-trial prisoner. The detenu was initially kept in Central Prison, Madurai, and thereafter he has been shifted to Coimbatore. Further, the detenu is in judicial custody simultaneously for the aforesaid three cases. Only under such circumstances, he was not produced before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Tambaram, and, in view of his production on 12.0
