Rani v. The Secretary To Government,
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 14.08.2023
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.SUNDAR and THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SAKTHIVEL H.C.P.No.1019 of 2023 Rani .. Petitioner Vs
1. The Secretary to Government, Prohibition and Excise Department, Government of Tamil Nadu, Fort St. George, Chennai - 9.
2. The Commissioner of Police, Avadi City, Thiruvallur District.
3.The Superintendent of Prison, Central Prison II, Puzhal, Chennai.
4.The Inspector of Police, T-3 Korattur Police Station, Chennai.
.. Respondents Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a writ of habeas corpus to call for the records of the second respondent herein in Memo No.14/BCDFGISSSV/2023 dated 27.01.2023 setting aside the detention order passed therein and produce the petitioner's grandson namely Mani @ Ganja Mani, who has been now detained in third respondent Central Prison, Puzhal at Chennai, before this Court and set him at liberty. Page Nos.1/10
For Petitioner :
Mr.S.Senthilvel for Mr.A.Arun Kumar For Respondents :
Mr.E.Raj Thilak Additional Public Prosecutor
ORDER
[Order of the Court was made by M.SUNDAR, J.,] When the captioned 'Habeas Corpus Petition' (hereinafter 'HCP' for the sake of convenience and clarity) was listed in the Admission Board on 20.06.2023, the following order was made: '
H.C.P. No.1019 of 2023 M.SUNDAR, J.
and R.SAKTHIVEL, J.
(Order of the Court was made by M.SUNDAR, J.,) Captioned Habeas Corpus Petition has been filed in this Court on 13.04.2023 inter alia assailing a detention order dated 27.01.2023 bearing reference No.14/BCDFGISSSV/2023 made by 'second respondent' [hereinafter 'Detaining Authority' for the sake of convenience and clarity]. To be noted, fourth respondent is the Sponsoring Authority.
2. To be noted, grandmother of detenu is the petitioner.
3. Mr.G.Nirmal Krishnan, learned counsel representing the counsel on record for petitioner is before us. Learned counsel expresses regret for not representing the matter in the previous listing on 19.06.2023. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that ground case qua the detenu is for alleged offences under Sections 341, 294(b), 323, 336, 427, 397 and 506(ii) of 'Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Act 45 of 1860)' Page Nos.2/10
['IPC' for the sake of brevity] in Crime No.651 of 2022 on the file of T-3 Korattur Police Station.
4. The aforementioned detention order has been made on the premise that the detenu is a 'Goonda' under Section 2(f) of 'The Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Cyber law offenders, Drug-offenders, Forestoffenders, Goondas, Immoral traffic offenders, Sandoffenders, Sexual-offenders, Slum-grabbers and Video Pirates Act, 1982 (Tamil Nadu Act No.14 of 1982)' [hereinafter 'Act 14 of 1982' for the sake of convenience and clarity].
5. The detention order has been assailed inter alia on the ground that there is a delay in passing the impugned preventive detention order as the detenu was remanded on 29.12.2022 but the impugned preventive detention order has been passed on 27.01.2023.
6. Prima facie case made out for admission. Admit. Issue Rule nisi returnable by four weeks.
7. Mr.E.Raj Thilak, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, State of Tamil Nadu accepts notice for all respondents. List the captioned Habeas Corpus Petition accordingly.'
2. The aforementioned Admission Board captures all essentials that are imperative for appreciating this order and therefore, we are not setting out the same again. However, short forms, short references and abbreviations used in the Admission Board order will continue to be used in the instant order also for the sake of brevity, convenience and clarity.
3. Mr.S.Senthilvel, learned counsel representing the counsel on Page Nos.3/10
record for petitioner and Mr.E.Raj Thilak, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for all the respondents are before us.
4. To be noted, 'order dated 27.01.2023 bearing reference No.14/BCDFGISSSV/2023' made by second respondent / Detaining Authority shall in this order be referred to as 'impugned preventive detention order' for the sake of convenience and clarity.
5. As would be evident from paragraph 5 of the Admission Board order, at the time of admission, learned counsel for petitioner predicated his challenge to the impugned preventive detention order on the point that there is a delay in passing the impugned preventive detention order as the detenu was remanded on 29.12.2022 but the impugned preventive detention order has been passed on 27.01.2023, however in the final hearing today, learned counsel predicated his campaign against the impugned preventive detention order on the ground that the subjective satisfaction arrived at by the Detaining Authority qua imminent possibility of detenu being released on bail is impaired.
Page Nos.4/10
6. Elaborating on the aforementioned point on subjective satisfaction, learned counsel for petitioner drew our attention to a portion of paragraph 4 of the impugned preventive detention order which reads as follows:
'4...In a similar case registered at under section 294(b), 341, 323, 397, 336, 427 and 506(ii) IPC, in J-4 Kotturpuram Police Station Crime No.43/2018, the bail was granted by the Court of Principal Sessions Judge at Chennai in Crl.M.P.No.1759/2018. Hence, I infer that there is real possibility of his coming out on bail in T-3 Korattur Police Station Crime Nos.587/2022 and 651/2022, since in similar case bail is granted by the court after a lapse of time...'
7. Thereafter, learned counsel placed before us the grounds booklet as served on the detenu and drew our attention to page Nos.160 to 163 thereat wherein Aravind's case bail order (similar case) made in English by the learned Sessions Judge and what according to the Detaining Authority's Tamil translation version were furnished to the detenu. On a perusal of the bail order in English and the Tamil translated version brings to light that the bail order in Page Nos.5/10
English refers to pending cases against the petitioner with specificity as regards years in paragraph 6 but in the Tamil translation the same is missing.
8. Learned Prosecutor in response to the above arguments submitted that only the mentioning of the years of pending cases with specificity is missing but otherwise the translation is largely correct.
9. We carefully considered the rival submissions. We find from the confession statement of the detenu at page Nos.137 to 139 of the grounds booklet that the literacy level of the detenu is only 9th Standard in School. Therefore, it is not merely a case of improper translation it is also a case of giving orders with different contents in English and Tamil version which can baffle a person whose literacy level is only 9th Standard in School. This means that when a detenu is baffled, his right to make an effective representation against the impugned preventive detention order gets impaired.
10. We also remind ourselves of Powanammal case i.e., Page Nos.6/10
Powanammal Vs. State of Tamil Nadu, wherein Hon'ble Supreme Court addressed to itself this translation point in a similar fact situation. The question which the Hon'ble Supreme Court addressed to itself is captured in paragraph 6 and the manner in which a Hon'ble Bench of the Supreme Court answered this question is captured in paragraph 16. To be noted, Powanammal case is reported in (1999) 2 SCC 413 and paragraphs 6 and 16 {as in SCC journal} read as follows:
'6.The short question that falls for our consideration is whether failure to supply the Tamil version of the order of remand passed in English, a language not known to the detenue, would vitiate her further detention.
16. For the above reasons, in our view, the non-supply of the Tamil version of the English document, on the facts and in the circumstances, renders her continued detention illegal. We, therefore, direct that the detenue be set free forthwith unless she is required to be detained in any other case. The appeal is accordingly allowed. '
11. Therefore, this is a case of improper translation as well as Page Nos.7/10
providing documents with different contents in two different languages impairing the detenu's right to make an effective representation. The net sequitur is the impugned preventive detention order is vitiated and the same deserves to be dislodged.
12. Ergo, the sequitur is, captioned HCP is allowed. Impugned preventive detention order dated 27.01.2023 bearing reference No.14/BCDFGISSSV/2023 made by the second respondent is set aside and the detenu Thiru.Mani @ Ganja Mani, aged 23 years, Son of Thiru.Kandhan, is directed to be set at liberty forthwith, if not required in connection with any other case / cases. There shall be no order as to costs.
(M.S.,J.) (R.S.V.,J.) 14.08.2023 Index : Yes mmi P.S: Registry to forthwith communicate this order to Jail authorities in Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai. To
1. The Secretary to Government, Prohibition and Excise Department, Government of Tamil Nadu, Fort St. George, Chennai - 9.
Page Nos.8/10
2. The Commissioner of Police, Avadi City, Thiruvallur District.
3.The Superintendent of Prison, Central Prison II, Puzhal, Chennai.
4.The Inspector of Police, T-3 Korattur Police Station, Chennai.
5.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.
Page Nos.9/10
M.SUNDAR, J., and R.SAKTHIVEL, J., mmi H.C.P.No.1019 of 2023 14.08.2023 Page Nos.10/10