Uma Maheswari v. The State Rep.By
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 27.10.2022 Coram The Honourable Mr. Justice P.N.PRAKASH and The Honourable Mr. Justice RMT.TEEKAA RAMAN Uma Maheswari .. Petitioner Vs State represented by 1.The Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Secretariat, Fort St.George, Chennai-9.
2.The District Magistrate and District Collector, Namakkal District, Namakkal.
3.The Superintendent of Police, Namakkal District, Namakkal.
4.The Superintendent of Prison, Central Prison, Salem.
5.The Inspector of Police, Namakkal Police Station, Namakkal 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 C.M.P.No.6/Drug offender/2022(M1) dated 10.02.2022 on the file of the District Magistrate and District Collector, Namakkal District, Namakkal, the second respondent herein and quash the same as illegal and direct the respondents to produce the detenu Murugan, S/o.Nataraj, aged about 49 years, now confined at the Central Prison, Salem, before this Court and set him at liberty. For Petitioner : Mr.R.Thamaraiselvan For Respondents : Mr.R.Muniyapparaj Addl. Public Prosecutor
ORDER
(Made by P.N.PRAKASH, J.) The petitioner is the wife of the detenu Murugan, S/o.Nataraj, aged about 49 years. The detenu has been detained by the second respondent by his order in Memo C.M.P.No.6/Drug offender/2022(M1) dated 10.02.2022, holding him to be a "Drug Offender", as contemplated under Section 2(e) 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 Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents. We have also perused the records produced by the Detaining Authority.
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 properly translated in vernacular language. This deprived the detenu from making effective representation. Therefore, on this ground, the detention order is liable to be quashed. 4.
The learned Additional Public Prosecutor strongly opposed the habeas corpus petition by filing his counter. 5.
On consideration of the submissions made on either side and upon perusal of the documents available on record especially Page Nos.57 and 60 of the booklet, it is clear that the arrest intimation has not been properly 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.6/Drug offender/2022(M1) dated 10.02.2022, passed by the second respondent is set aside. The detenu, viz., Murugan S/o.Nataraj, aged about 49 years, is directed to be released forthwith unless his detention is required in connection with any other case.
(P.N.P., J.) (TKRJ) 27.10.2022 Index: Yes/No nsd
To 1.The Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Secretariat, Fort St.George, Chennai-9.
2.The District Magistrate and District Collector, Namakkal District, Namakkal.
3.The Superintendent of Police, Namakkal District, Namakkal.
4.The Superintendent of Prison, Central Prison, Salem.
5.The Inspector of Police, Namakkal Police Station, Namakkal 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.
P.N.PRAKASH, J.
and RMT.TEEKAA RAMAN, J.
nsd 27.10.2022