Meenatchi v. State Of Tamilnadu

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 29.04.2022

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.N.PRAKASH AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.A.NAKKIRAN H.C.P.NO.110 OF 2022 Meenatchi W/o.Murugan

...Petitioner

Vs.

1.The State of Tamil Nadu, Represented by its Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Secretariat, Chennai - 600 009.

2.The District Collector and District Magistrate, Villupuram District, Villupuram.

3.The Superintendent of Police, O/o.Superintendent of Police, Villupuram, Villupuram District.

4.The Superintendent of Prison, Central Prison, Cuddalore, Cuddalore District.

5.State represented by The Inspector of Police, PEW Kottakuppam Police Station, Villupuram District.

...Respondents

Habeas Corpus Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus calling for records in detention order passed in Rc.No.C2/31547/2021 dated 27.11.2021 by the second respondent herein and quash the same and direct the respondents herein to produce the petitioner's son, namely, Madhankumar s/o.Murugan, aged about 25 years, who is now confined in Central Prison, Cuddalore, before this Court and set him at liberty.

For Petitioner :

Mr.R.Sasi Kumar For Respondents :

Mr.M.Babu Muthu Meeran Additional Public Prosecutor

ORDER

[Made by A.A.NAKKIRAN, J] The petitioner is the mother of the detenu viz., Madhankumar s/o.Murugan, aged about 25 years. The detenu has been detained by the second respondent by his order in Rc.No.C2/31547/2021 dated 27.11.2021, holding him to be a "Bootlegger", as contemplated under Section 2(b) of the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982. The said order is under challenge in this Habeas Corpus Petition.

2. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents. We have also perused the records produced by the Detaining Authority.

3. Though learned counsel for the petitioner has raised several other grounds to assail the order of detention, he has mainly focused his argument on the ground that the arrest intimation pertaining to the ground case has not been fully translated in vernacular language. This deprived the detenu from making effective representation. Therefore, on these grounds, the detention order is liable to be quashed.

4. On consideration of the submissions made on either side and upon perusal of the documents available on record, especially, Page Nos.22 and 23 of the booklet, it is clear that the arrest intimation pertaining to the ground case has not been fully translated in vernacular language. Thus, the impugned detention order is liable to be set aside on this ground. In the result, the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and the order of detention in Rc.No.C2/31547/2021 dated 27.11.2021 passed by the second respondent is set aside. The detenu, viz., Madhankumar s/o.Murugan, aged about 25 years, is directed to be released forthwith unless his detention is required in connection with any other case.

Sd/- Assistant Registrar(CO) // True Copy // Sub Assistant Registrar gm

To 1.The Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Secretariat, Chennai - 600 009.

2.The District Collector and District Magistrate, Villupuram District, Villupuram.

3.The Superintendent of Police, O/o.Superintendent of Police, Villupuram, Villupuram District.

4.The Superintendent of Prison, Central Prison, Cuddalore, Cuddalore District.

5.The Inspector of Police, PEW Kottakuppam Police Station, Villupuram District.

6.The Joint Secretary to Government of Tamil Nadu, Public, Law and Order Department, Secretariat, Chennai - 9.

7.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.

H.C.P.No.110 of 2022 SS(CO) RVM(02/05/2022)