Vikash Mahto v. The Additional Chief Secretary To Government,
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 26.06.2023
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.SUNDAR and THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SAKTHIVEL Vikash Mahto .. Petitioner Vs
1. The Additional Chief Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Fort St.George, Chennai -9.
2. The Commissioner of Police, Office of the Commissioner of Police, Greater Chennai.
3.The Superintendent, Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai - 66.
4.The Inspector of Police, Cyber Crime Division I, Team D, Central Crime Branch.
.. Respondents Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a writ of habeas corpus to call for the records relating to the detention order in Memo No.448/BCDFGISSSV/2022 dated 02.12.2022 passed by the second respondent under the Tamil Page Nos.1/15
Nadu Act 14 of 1982 and set aside the same and direct the respondents to produce the detenu Vikash Mahto, S/o.Jawashar Mahto, aged about 20 years, now confined in Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai, before this Court and set him at liberty.
For Petitioner :
Ms.R.Subadra Devi For Respondents :
Mr.E.Raj Thilak, Additional Public Prosecutor
ORDER
[Order of the Court was made by M.SUNDAR, J.,] When the captioned 'Habeas Corpus Petition' (hereinafter 'HCP' for the sake of convenience and clarity) was listed in the Admission Board on 24.01.2023, this Court made the following order: 'Captioned Habeas Corpus Petition has been filed in this Court on 04.01.2023 inter alia assailing a detention order dated 02.12.2022 bearing reference No.448/BCDFGISSSV/2022 made by 'second respondent' [hereinafter 'Detaining Authority' for the sake of convenience and clarity]. To be noted, fourth respondent is the Sponsoring Authority.
2. The detenu is the petitioner.
Page Nos.2/15
3. Mr.K.Anandharaja, learned counsel on record for habeas corpus petitioner is before us. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that ground case qua the detenu is for alleged offences under Sections 294(b), 384, 469, 506(i) IPC and 66 read with 43(i) and 67 of Information Technology (Amendment) Act 2008 and Sections 3 and 4 of Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Charging Exorbitant Interest Act 2003 in Crime No.92 of 2022 on the file of Cyber Crime Division-I, Central Crime Branch.
4. The aforementioned detention order has been made on the premise that the detenu is a 'Cyber Law Offender' under Section 2(bb) of 'The Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Cyber law offenders, Drug-offenders, Forest-offenders, Goondas, Immoral traffic offenders, Sand-offenders, Sexual-offenders, Slumgrabbers and Video Pirates Act, 1982 (Tamil Nadu Act No.14 of 1982)' [hereinafter 'Act 14 of 1982' for the sake of convenience and clarity].
5. The detention order has been assailed inter alia on the ground that ground case has been filed or foisted with non-application of mind.
6. Prima facie case made out for admission. Admit. Issue Rule nisi returnable by four weeks.
Page Nos.3/15
7. Mr.R.Muniyapparaj, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, State of Tamil Nadu accepts notice for all respondents. List the captioned Habeas Corpus Petition accordingly.'
2. The aforementioned order made in the 24.01.2023 Admission listing shall be read as an integral part and parcel of this order which means that the short forms, short references and abbreviations used in the order in the Admission listing shall be used in the instant order also.
3. There is one adverse case. The ground case which constitutes substantial part of substratum of the impugned detention order is Crime No.92 of 2022 on the file of Cyber Crime Division-I for the alleged offences under Sections 294(b), 384, 469, 506(i) IPC and 66 r/w 43(i) and 67 of Information Technology (Amendment) Act, 2008 and Sections 3 and 4 of Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Charging Exorbitant Interest Act, 2003. Owing to the nature of the challenge to the impugned detention order, it is not necessary to delve into the factual matrix or be detained further by facts.
Page Nos.4/15
4. Ms.R.Subadra Devi, learned counsel on record for petitioner and Mr.E.Raj Thilak, learned State Additional Public Prosecutor for all respondents are before us.
5.
Though very many grounds have been raised in the support affidavit, learned counsel for petitioner at the hearing projected his argument in his challenge against the impugned preventive detention order on the point that the entire index of the grounds booklet i.e., six pages (168 documents) running to 784 pages is entirely in Tamil. A scanned reproduction of the index pages of the grounds booklet is as follows:
Page Nos.5/15
Page Nos.6/15
Page Nos.7/15
Page Nos.8/15
Page Nos.9/15
Page Nos.10/15
6.
As this turns on obtaining facts which are before us learned State Additional Public Prosecutor does not have much of a say.
Page Nos.11/15
7.
Be that as it may we are informed that the literacy level of the detenu is 12th standard. There is no disputation that the detenu is conversant only with English and Hindi. We remind ourselves of Powanammal case i.e., Powanammal Vs. State of Tamil Nadu. The question which the Honourable Bench of the Supreme Court addressed itself to in a similar fact situation is captured in paragraph 6 and the manner in which a Honourable Bench of the Supreme Court answered this question is captured in paragraph 16. To be noted, Powanammal case is reported in (1999) 2 SCC 413 and paragraphs 6 and 16 {as in SCC journal} read as follows:
'6. The short question that falls for our consideration is whether failure to supply the Tamil version of the order of remand passed in English, a language not known to the detenue, would vitiate her further detention.
16. For the above reasons, in our view, the non-supply of the Tamil version of the English document, on the facts and in the circumstances, renders her continued detention illegal. We, therefore, direct that the detenue be set free forthwith unless she is required to be detained in any other case. The appeal is accordingly allowed. '
8.
Applying Powanammal principle, we have no hesitation in Page Nos.12/15
saying that the impugned detention order in the case on hand deserves to be dislodged.
9.
Apropos, the sequitur is, captioned HCP is allowed. Impugned detention order dated 02.12.2022 bearing reference No.448/BCDFGISSSV/2022 made by the second respondent is set aside and the detenu Thiru.Vikash Mahto @ Vikash, aged 21 years, son of Thiru.Jawashar Mahto is directed to be set at liberty forthwith, if not required in connection with any other case / cases. There shall be no order as to costs.
(M.S.,J.) (R.S.V.,J.) 26.06.2023 Index : Yes / No mmi P.S: Registry to forthwith communicate this order to Jail authorities in Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai. To
1. The Additional Chief Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Fort St.George, Chennai -9.
2. The Commissioner of Police, Office of the Commissioner of Police, Page Nos.13/15
Greater Chennai.
3.The Superintendent, Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai - 66.
4.The Inspector of Police, Cyber Crime Division I, Team D, Central Crime Branch.
5.The Public Prosecutor High Court, Madras.
Page Nos.14/15
M.SUNDAR, J., and R.SAKTHIVEL, J., mmi 26.06.2023 Page Nos.15/15