Sumathi, v. The Secretary To Government,

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 20.10.2016

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.JAICHANDREN and THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.BASKARAN H.C.P.No.899 of 2016 Sumathi ...Petitioner / Mother of the detenu Vs.

1.The Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition & Excise Department, Secretariat, Chennai - 600 009.

2.The Commissioner of Police Chennai Police Office of the Commissioner of Police (Goondas Section) Egmore, Chennai-20.

3The Superintendent of Prison Central Prison Puzhal, Chennai.

..Respondents Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus calling for the records in connection with the order of detention passed by the second respondent, in BCDFGISSSV No.452/2016, dated 20.4.2016, against the detenu, viz., Thiru. Gopalakrishnan, son of Manibalan, aged about 24 years, who is confined at the Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai, and to set aside the same and to direct the respondents to produce the detenu before this Court and set him at liberty. For Petitioner : M/s.S.Mohamed Ansar For Respondents : Mr.V.M.R.Rajentren, Additional Public Prosecutor - - - -

ORDER

[Order of the Court was made by S. BASKARAN, J] This Habeas Corpus Petition has been filed, by the mother of the detenu, namely, Gopalakrishnan, son of Manibalan, aged about 24 years, praying that this Court may be pleased to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus, to call for the records, in BCDFGISSSV No.452 of 2016, dated 20.4.2016, passed by the second respondent, detaining the detenu under Section 3(1) of the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Cyber Law Offenders, Drug Offenders, Forest Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders, Sand Offenders, Slum Grabbers and Video Pirates Act, 1982 (Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982), branding him as a "Goonda", in the Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai and to quash the same and to direct the Respondents to produce the body of the detenu and to set him at liberty, forthwith.

2. We have heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the State and we have also perused the records, carefully.

3. Though various grounds have been raised in the affidavit filed in support of the Habeas Corpus Petition, the learned counsel, appearing on behalf of the petitioner, had submitted that there was no proper translation in respect of the remand order, dated 19.3.2016. Though in the English version of the remand order, it is stated that, "Accused has sustained on injury on his right leg and he has stated that his right leg was fractured one year back and the same was not properly joined." the translated version of the same is not found in the vernacular copy of the remand order. Further, though in the remand order, dated 19.3.2016, it is stated that, "the prison authorities are required to give proper and necessary treatment to him, the same has not been found in the vernacular copy of the remand order. Since the remand order, dated 19.3.

2016, had not been properly and correctly translated into vernacular version, the detenu had been prevented from making an effective representation against the impugned order of detention. Thus, the detention order is vitiated and the same is liable to be quashed.

4. The said submission made by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, had not been refuted by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the respondents.

5. A perusal of the booklet supplied to the detenu would show that the English version of the remand order, dated 19.3.2016, which is available at page number 69, has not been properly translated into vernacular version, which is available at page number 70, which, in our view, would prejudice the detenu, in making an effective representation against the impugned order of detention, dated 20.4.2016. Therefore, we are inclined to set aside the impugned detention order.

6.Accordingly, the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and the impugned order of detention, dated 20.4.2016, passed by the second respondent is set aside. The detenu is directed to be released forthwith, unless his presence is required in connection with any other case.

Rnb Sd/- Assistant Registrar (CS III) /TRUE COPY/ Sub-Assistant Registrar To 1.The Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition & Excise Department, Secretariat, Chennai - 600 009.

2.The Commissioner of Police Chennai Police Office of the Commissioner of Police (Goondas Section) Egmore, Chennai-20.

3. The Superintendent of Prison Central Prison Puzhal, Chennai.

4. The Joint Secretary to Government Public [Law & Order] Fort St.George, Chennai-9.

5.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.

H.C.P.No.899 of 2016 NMI[CO] MK:03/01/2017