Ibrahim v. Home, Prohibition And Excise Department

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 28.06.2024 CORAM :

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.S. RAMESH AND THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN H.C.P.No.1328 of 2024 Ibrahim ... Petitioner Vs.

1.The Additional Chief 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 (Crime), K-10, Koyambedu Police Station, Chennai.

... Respondents PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus, calling for the records in connection with the order of detention passed by the second respondent dated 01.12.2023

in No.641/BCDFGISSSV/2023 against the petitioner's father namely Prakash @ Siddiq Ali, Male, aged about 36 years, S/o.Sivagnanam, 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.S.Senthilvel For Respondents : Mr.A.Gokulakrishnan, Additional Public Prosecutor

ORDER

M.S.RAMESH, J.

AND SUNDER MOHAN , J.

The petitioner herein, who is the son of the detenu Prakash @ Siddiq Ali, aged about 36 years, has come forward with this petition challenging the detention order passed by the second respondent dated 01.12.2023 slapped on his father, branding him as "Goonda" under the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Cyber Law Offenders, Drug Offenders, Forest Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders, Sand Offenders, Sexual Offenders, Slum Grabbers and Video Pirates Act, 1982 [Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982].

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, as well as the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents.

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 name of the prosecution witnesses have not been 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 perusal of the documents available on record, especially Page No.21 of the booklet of Vol.2, which is the Memo of Evidence, it is clear that the name of the prosecution witnesses, as well as the other documents in English have not been translated in vernacular language. Therefore, the detenu is deprived from making effective representation and that the Detention Order passed by the Detaining Authority is vitiated.

5. In this context, it is useful to refer to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of 'Powanammal Vs. State of Tamil Nadu' reported in '(1999) 2 SCC 413'. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, after discussing the safeguards embodied in Article 22[5] of the Constitution, observed that the detenu should be afforded an opportunity of making representation effectively against the Detention Order and that, the failure to supply every material in the language which can be understood by the detenu, is imperative. In the said context, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held in Paragraphs 9 and 16 {as in SCC journal} as follows: "9.

However, this Court has maintained a distinction between a document which has been relied upon by the detaining authority in the grounds of detention and a document which finds a mere reference in the grounds of detention. Whereas the non-supply of a copy of the document relied upon in the grounds of detention has been held to be fatal to continued detention, the detenu need not show that any prejudice is caused to him. This is because the non-supply of such a document would amount to denial of the right of being communicated the grounds and of being afforded the opportunity of making an effective representation against the order.

merely finds a reference in the order of detention or among the grounds thereof. In such a case, the detenu's complaint of non-supply of document has to be supported by prejudice caused to him in making an effective representation. What applies to a document would equally apply to furnishing a translated copy of the document in the language known to and understood by the detenu, should the document be in a different language.

.....

16. For the above reasons, in our view, the nonsupply 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."

6. In view of the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and in view of the aforesaid facts, this Court is of the view that the detention order is liable to be quashed.

7. Accordingly, the detention order passed by the second respondent on 01.12.2023 in No.641/BCDFGISSSV/2023, is hereby set aside and the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed. The detenu viz., Prakash @ Siddiq Ali, aged about 36 years, S/o.Sivagnanam, is directed

to be set at liberty forthwith, unless his confinement is required in connection with any other case.

[M.S.R., J] [S.M., J] 28.06.2024 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Internet: Yes/No Sni

To 1.The Additional Chief 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 (Crime), K-10, Koyambedu Police Station, Chennai.

5.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.

M.S.RAMESH, J.

and SUNDER MOHAN , J.

Sni H.C.P.No.1328 of 2024 28.06.2024