Rajeswari v. The Secretary To The Government

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED:05.11.2020 Coram The Hon'ble Mr. Justice M.M.SUNDRESH and The Hon'ble Mr. Justice D.KRISHNAKUMAR H.C.P. No. 880 of 2020 Rajeswari ... Petitioner -vs1. The Secretary to Government Home Prohibition and Excise Department Secretariat, Chennai 600 009.

2. Commissioner of Police Greater Chennai.

3. The Superintendent of Prison, Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai - 66.

4. The Inspector of Police, P6 Kodungaiyur Police Station, Chennai 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 dated 28.02.2020 made in Memo No.148/BCDFGISSSV/2020 against the petitioner's husband Senthilkumar, male, aged about 31 years, S/o.Vijayakumar, who is confined at Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai and set aside the same and direct the respondents to produce the detenu before this Court and set him at liberty.

For Petitioner : Mr.R.Thirugnanam For Respondents : Mr.R.Prathap Kumar, Addl. Public Prosecutor

ORDER

[Order of the Court was made by M.M.SUNDRESH, J.] The petitioner is the wife of Senthilkumar, aged about 31 years, S/o.Vijayakumar, who is the detenu. The detenu has been detained by the second respondent by his order in Memo No.148/BCDFGISSSV/2020 dated 28.02.2020, 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 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 remand order has not been properly translated in vernacular language. This deprived the detenu from making effective representation. Therefore, on this sole ground, 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.40 & 41 of the booklet, it is clear that the remand order has not been properly translated in vernacular language. Thus the impugned detention order is liable to be set aside on this ground.

5. In the result, the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and the order of detention in Memo No.148/BCDFGISSSV/2020 dated 28.02.2020, passed by the second respondent is set aside. The detenu, namely, Senthilkumar, aged about 31 years, S/o.Vijayakumar, is directed to be released forthwith unless his detention is required in connection with any other case. Sd/- Assistant Registrar //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar

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

2. The Commissioner of Police Greater Chennai.

3. The Superintendent of Prison, Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai - 66.

4.The Inspector of Police, P6 Kodungaiyur Police Station, Chennai District.

5. The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.

6.The Joint Secretary to Government Public ( Law & order) Fort st.george, Chennai-9 H.C.P. No. 880 of 2020 EV(CO) RMP(08/12/2020)