Rani v. The Commissioner Of Police
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 26.10.2022 Coram The Honourable Mr. Justice P.N.PRAKASH and The Honourable Mr. Justice RMT.TEEKAA RAMAN Rani .. Petitioner Vs 1.State of Tamil Nadu represented by The Secretary, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Fort St.George, Chennai.
2.The Commissioner of Police, The Greater Chennai City, Vepery, Chennai.
3.The Superintendent of Prison, Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai - 600 066.
4.The Inspector of Police, H-5, New Washermenpet Police Station, (Law and Order), Chennai.
.. Respondents Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a writ of Habeas Corpus calling for the records relating to the
detention order in Memo No.27/BCDFGISSSV/2022 dated 02.03.2022 passed by the second respondent under the Tamil Nadu Act 14/1982 and set aside the same and direct the respondents to produce the petitioner's son Chandrasekar @ Chandru, S/o.Mani, aged 32 years, the detenu, now confined in the Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai, before this Court and set the petitioner's son Chandrasekar @ Chandru, S/o.Mani, aged 32 years, the detenu herein, at liberty. For Petitioner : Mr.M.Kaveriselvam For Respondents : Mr.R.Muniyapparaj Addl. Public Prosecutor
ORDER
(Made by P.N.PRAKASH, J.) The petitioner is the mother of the detenu Chandrasekar @ Chandru, S/o.Mani, aged 32 years. The detenu has been detained by the second respondent by his order in Memo No.27/BCDFGISSSV/2022 dated 02.03.2022, 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 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 remand order pertaining to the ground case 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.95 and 97 of the booklet, it is clear that the remand order pertaining to the ground case 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 Memo No.27/BCDFGISSSV/2022 dated 02.03.2022, passed by the second respondent is set aside. The detenu, viz., Chandrasekar @ Chandru, S/o.Mani, aged 32 years, is directed to be released forthwith unless his detention is required in connection with any other case.
(P.N.P., J.) (TKRJ) 26.10.2022 Index: Yes/No nsd
To 1.The Secretary, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Fort St.George, Chennai.
2.The Commissioner of Police, The Greater Chennai City, Vepery, Chennai.
3.The Superintendent of Prison, Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai - 600 066.
4.The Inspector of Police, H-5, New Washermenpet Police Station, (Law and Order), Chennai.
5.The Joint Secretary to Government of Tamil Nadu, Public, Law and Order Department, Secretariat, Chennai - 9.
6.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.
P.N.PRAKASH, J.
and RMT.TEEKAA RAMAN, J.
nsd 26.10.2022