Latha v. The Secretary To The Government

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. 1144 of 2020 Latha ..Petitioner Vs.

1. The Secretary to the Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Secretariat, Chennai 600 009.

2. The District Collector and District Magistrate, Tiruvannamalai District, Tiruvannamalai.

3. The Superintendent of Police, Tiruvannamalai District, Tiruvannamalai.

4. The Superintendent of Prison, Central Prison, Vellore 2.

5. The Inspector of Police, Thanipadi Police Station, Tiruvannamalai District.

..Respondents Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of Writ of Habeas Corpus to call for the records in connection with the order of Detention passed by the second respondent dated 30.06.2020 in D.O. No. 54/2020- C2 against the petitioner's husband Govindaraji, Male, aged 41 years S/o. Arumugam, who is confined at Central Prison, Vellore and set aside the same and direct the respondents to produce the detenu before this Court and set him at Liberty. For Petitioner : Mr.S.Senthilvel 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 Govindaraji, aged 41 years, S/o. Arumugam, who is the detenu. The detenu has been detained by the second respondent by his order in D.O. No. 54/2020- C2 dated 30.06.2020, holding him to be a "Bootlegger", as contemplated under Section 2(b) 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 forensic report 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.47 & 48 of the booklet, it is clear that the forensic report 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 D.O. No. 54/2020- C2, dated 30.06.2020, passed by the second respondent is set aside. The detenu, namely, Govindaraji, aged 41 years, S/o. Arumugam, 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 the Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Secretariat, Chennai 600 009.

2.The District Collector and District Magistrate, Tiruvannamalai District, Tiruvannamalai.

3.The Superintendent of Police, Tiruvannamalai District, Tiruvannamalai.

4.The Superintendent of Prison, Central Prison, Vellore 2.

5.The Inspector of Police, Thanipadi Police Station, Tiruvannamalai District.

6.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.

H.C.P. No.1144 of 2020 SSD(CO) RMP(18/01/2021)