Santhi v. State Rep. By
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 19.07.2021 Coram The Honourable Mr. Justice P.N.PRAKASH and The Honourable Mr. Justice R.PONGIAPPAN H.C.P.No.160 of 2021 Santhi .. Petitioner Vs.
1. State represented by The Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Fort St.George, Chennai - 9.
2. The Commissioner of Police, Salem City, Salem.
3. The Superintendent of Prison, Central Prison, Salem.
4. The Inspector of Police, Pallapatty Police Station, Salem District.
.. Respondents Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a writ of Habeas Corpus to call for the records in connection with the order of detention passed by the second respondent in C.M.P.No.58/Goonda/Salem City/2020 dated 18.12.2020 against the petitioner's son Puli @ Purusothaman, son of Boopathy, aged about 29 years, who is confined in Central Prison, Salem and set aside the same and direct the respondents to produce him before this Court and set him at liberty forthwith.
For Petitioner : Mr.S.Sengkodi For Respondents : Mr.R.Muniyapparaj, Govt.Advocate(Crl.Side)
ORDER
[Order of the Court was made by R.PONGIAPPAN, J.] The petitioner is the mother of the detenu Puli @ Purusothaman, son of Boopathy, aged about 29 years. The detenu has been detained by the second respondent by his order in C.M.P.No.58/Goonda/Salem City/2020 dated 18.12.2020, holding him to be a "Goonda", as contemplated under Section 2(f) of 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 Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the respondents and we have also perused the records carefully.
3.
Though the 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 has not been translated in vernacular language. He further submitted that the detaining authority, while detaining the detenu, has not furnished the legible copies of the documents relied on by him. 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 No.23 of the booklet, it is clear that the arrest intimation has not been 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 C.M.P.No.58/Goonda/Salem City/2020 dated 18.12.2020, passed by the second respondent is set aside. The detenu, viz., Puli @ Purusothaman, son of Boopathy, aged about
29 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 nsd To
1. The Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Fort St.George, Chennai - 9.
2. The Commissioner of Police, Salem City, Salem.
3. The Superintendent of Prison, Central Prison, Salem.
4. The Inspector of Police, Pallapatty Police Station, Salem District.
5. The Joint Secretary to Government of Tamil Nadu, Public, Law and Order Department, Secretariat, Chennai - 9.
6. The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.
H.C.P.No.160 of 2021 MG (CO) K.RK. (23.07.2021)