Sivakami v. The Secretary To The Government,
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 09..01..2023 Coram The Honourable Mr. Justice P.N.PRAKASH and The Honourable Mr. Justice N.ANAND VENKATESH Habeas Corpus Petition No.1398 of 2022 Sivakami W/o.Jagatheesan .. Petitioner Vs.
1.The Secretary to the Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Secretariat, Chennai - 600 009.
2.District Collector and District Magistrate of Tiruvannamalai District, Tiruvannamalai.
3.The Superintendent of Police, Tiruvannamalai District, Tiruvannamalai.
4.The Superintendent of Prison, Central Prison, Vellore.
5.The Inspector of Police, Chetpet Police Station, Tiruvannamalai District.
.. Respondents Habeas Corpus Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India praying to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus call for the records in connection with the order of detention passed by the 2nd respondent 16.06.2022 in D.O.No.65/2022-C2 against the petitioner husband Jagatheesan, Male aged 49 years S/o.Desinghu who is confined at Central Prison, Vellore and set aside the same and direct the respondents to produce the detenu before the Court and set him at liberty. For Petitioner : Mr.D.Balaji For Respondents : Mr.R.Muniyapparaj, Additional Public Prosecutor
ORDER
[Order of the Court was made by P.N.PRAKASH.J.,] The petitioner is the wife of the detenu viz., Jagatheesan, Son of Desinghu. The detenu has been detained by the second respondent by his order in D.O.No.65/2022-C2 dated 16.06.2022, 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 on the ground that the arrest intimation has not been fully 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. On consideration of the submissions made on either side and upon perusal of the documents available on record, especially, Page Nos.48 & 49 of the booklet, it is clear that the arrest intimation has not been fully 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 D.O.No.65/2022-C2 dated 16.06.2022, passed by the second respondent is set aside. The detenu viz., Jagatheesan, Son of Desinghu, is directed to be released forthwith unless his detention is required in connection with any other case.
(P.N.P., J.) (N.A.V.,J.) 09..01..2023 Index: Yes/No kmk
To 1.The Secretary to the Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Secretariat, Chennai - 600 009.
2.District Collector and District Magistrate of Tiruvannamalai District, Tiruvannamalai.
3.The Superintendent of Police, Tiruvannamalai District, Tiruvannamalai.
4.The Superintendent of Prison, Central Prison, Vellore.
5.The Inspector of Police, Chetpet Police Station, Tiruvannamalai District.
6.The Joint Secretary to Government of Tamil Nadu, Public, Law and Order Department, Secretariat, Chennai - 9.
7.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.
P.N.PRAKASH.J., AND N.ANAND VENKATESH.J., kmk 09..01..2023