S.Arul Jothi v. State Of Tamilnadu Rep By
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 21.12.2020 Coram The Hon'ble Mr. Justice M.M.SUNDRESH and The Hon'ble Mr. Justice D.KRISHNAKUMAR H.C.P. No. 1107 of 2020 S.ARUL JOTHI ... Petitioner -vs1.STATE OF TAMILNADU, REP. BY THE SECRETARY, HOME, PROHIBITION AND EXCISE DEPARTMENT, FORT ST. GEORGE, CHENNAI-600009.
2.DISTRICT COLLECTOR AND DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR AND DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, CUDDALORE DISTRICT.
3.THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, CUDDALORE, CUDDALORE DISTRICT.
4.THE SUPERINTENDENT OF PRISON, CENTRAL PRISON, CUDDALORE, CUDDALORE DISTRICT.
5.THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, NEYVELI TOWNSHIP POLICE STATION, CUDDALORE DISTRICT.
...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 C3/D.O./65/2020, dated 28.05.2020 passed by the 2nd respondent under the Tamilnadu Act 14 of 1982 and set aside the same and direct the respondent to Produce the petitioner's son SINGUTU @ SINGARAVELAN, S/O. SIVASANKAR, aged about 24 years the detenu, now confined in Central Prison, Cuddalore before this Court and set the petitioner's son SINGUTU @ SINGARAVELAN, S/O. SIVASANKAR, aged about 24 years the detenu herein at liberty.
For Petitioner : Mr.K.Sathish 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 mother of Singutu @ Singaravelan, S/o. Sivasankar, aged about 24 years, who is the detenu. The detenu has been detained by the second respondent by his order in C3/D.O./65/2020, dated 28.05.2020, 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 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 No.186 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 C3/D.O./65/2020, dated 28.05.2020, passed by the second respondent is set aside. The detenu, namely, Singutu @ Singaravelan, S/o. Sivasankar, aged about 24 years, 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, HOME, PROHIBITION AND EXCISE DEPARTMENT, FORT ST. GEORGE, CHENNAI-600009.
2.THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR AND DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR AND DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, CUDDALORE DISTRICT.
3.THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, CUDDALORE, CUDDALORE DISTRICT.
4.THE SUPERINTENDENT OF PRISON, CENTRAL PRISON, CUDDALORE, CUDDALORE DISTRICT.
5.THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, NEYVELI TOWNSHIP POLICE STATION, CUDDALORE DISTRICT.
6. The Joint Secretary to Government, Public (law & Order), Fort Saint George, Chennai 9 7.THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT, MADRAS.
+1cc to Mr.K.Sathish, Advocate, S.R.No. 42360 H.C.P. No.1107 of 2020 SSD(CO) GN(18/01/2021)