Vijaya v. The State Of Tamilnadu Represented By Its

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 09.06.2022

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.VAIDYANATHAN AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA H.C.P.NO.2047 OF 2021 Vijaya

...Petitioner

Vs.

1.State of Tamil Nadu represented by The Secretary, Department of Home, Prohibition and Excise, Fort St. George, Chennai - 600 009.

2.The Commissioner of Police, Salem City, Salem.

3.The Superintendent of Prison, Central Prison, Salem, Salem District.

4.The Inspector of Police, Kichipalayam Police Station, Salem City, Salem District.

...Respondents

Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a writ of Habeas Corpus to call for the records made in C.M.P.No.110/Goonda/Salem City/2021 dated 09.11.2021 on the file of the second respondent herein and quash the same as illegal and direct the respondents to produce the detenu Sundar @ Soiyyan, son of Chinnadurai, aged 21 years, now confined at Central Prison, Salem before this Court and set him at liberty. For Petitioner :

Mr.A.Ramesh For Respondents :

Mr.E.Raj Thilak Addl. Public Prosecutor

ORDER

S.VAIDYANATHAN, J.

and A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA, J.

The petitioner is the mother of the detenu Sundar @ Soiyyan, son of Chinnadurai, aged 21 years. The detenu has been detained

by the second respondent by his order in C.M.P.

No.110/Goonda/Salem City/2021 dated 09.11.2021, 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 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 arrest intimation 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.144 and 145 of the booklet, it is clear that the arrest intimation 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 C.M.P. No.110/Goonda/Salem City/2021 dated 09.11.2021, passed by the second respondent is set aside. The detenu, namely, Sundar @ Soiyyan, son of Chinnadurai, aged 21 years, is directed to be released forthwith unless his detention is required in connection with any other case. Sd/- Assistant Registrar(CS-IV) // True Copy // Sub Assistant Registrar nsd To 1.The Secretary, Department of Home, Prohibition and Excise, Fort St. George, Chennai - 600 009.

2.The Commissioner of Police, Salem City, Salem.

3.The Superintendent of Prison, Central Prison, Salem, Salem District.

4.The Inspector of Police, Kichipalayam Police Station, Salem City, Salem District.

5.The Joint Secretary to Government of Tamil Nadu, Public, Law and Order Department, Secretariat, Chennai - 9.

6.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.

H.C.P.No.2047 of 2021 GPL(CO) RVM(16/06/2022)