Muthulakshmi v. State Of Tamil Nadu Rep.By

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED 12.12.2023

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR . JUSTICE S.S.SUNDAR AND THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN H.C.P.No.2133/2023 Muthulakshmi ..

Petitioner

Versus

1.State of Tamil Nadu rep.by its Additional Secretary, Home, Prohibition & Excise Department Fort St George, Chennai 600 009.

2.The Commissioner of Police Avadi City, Type V, Qtr No.5/1, HVF Estate Avadi, Chennai 600 054.

3.The Inspector of Police, T12 Poonamallee Police Station.

4.The Superintendent of Prison Central Prison II, Puzhal, Chennai 600 066.

.. Respondents

Prayer:- Habeas Corpus Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a Writ of Habeas Corpus calling for the records relating to the detention order in memo No.181/BCDFGISSSV/2023 dated 14.07.2023 passed by the 2nd respondent under the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982 and set aside the same and direct the respondent to produce the petitioner's son Thiru Manivannan @ Mani, son of Vijayakumar, aged about 31 years the detenu now confined in Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai before this Court and set the petitioner's son Thiru Manivannan @ Mani, son of Vijayakumar, aged about 31 years the detenu herein at liberty. For Petitioner :

Mr.R.Muthukumar For Respondents :

Mr.E.Raj Thilak Additional Public Prosecutor assisted by Mr.C.Aravind

O R D E R

[Order of the Court was made by S.S.SUNDAR, J.] (1)The petitioner, mother of the detenu has come forward with this petition challenging the detention order passed by the 2nd respondent dated 14.07.2023 slapped on her husband, branding him as "Goonda" under the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982.

(2)Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents. (3)Though several grounds are raised in the petition, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the order of Detention passed by the Detaining Authority suffers from non application of mind as paragraph No.6 of the similar case bail order in Crl.MP.No.1759/2018 in the English version in the Booklet, differs in the vernacular version. (4)On a perusal of the Booklet, in particular, page No.163, it is seen that bail order granted to the accused in a similar case is furnished and in paragraph No.6, it is stated as follows:-''......The murder case pending against the petitioner is of the year 2012 and another case is of the year 2014...''

However, in the translated copy of the said bail order in the vernacular version, it is stated as follows:-'',td; kPJ Vw;fdnt bfhiy tHf;F kw;Wk; bfhiy Kaw;rp tHf;F cs;sJ//////'' Hence, it is seen that there is an improper translation of the similar case bail order in the vernacular version. Further, the vernacular version of the similar case bail order is illegible and could not be read at all.

(5)It is in the said circumstances, this Court finds that serious prejudice is caused to the detenu on account of improper translation and furnishing of illegible copy, in making effective representation against the Detention Order and that the Detention Order passed by the Detaining Authority is vitiated.

(6)In this context, it is useful to refer to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Powanammal Vs. State of Tamil Nadu reported in (1999) 2 SCC 413. The Hon'ble Supreme Court had occasion to deal with similar situation where in the Grounds of Detention referred to an order remanding the detenu therein to judicial custody was in English language. Since the tamil version of the document was not supplied to the detenue therein, a specific issue was raised by the Hon'ble Supreme Court whether failure to supply tamil version of the remand order passed in English, a language not known to the detenu therein, would vitiate the detenu's further detention. 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.

But it would not be so where the document 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.''

(7)In the light of the above facts and law, we have no hesitation in quashing the order of detention on the ground of improper translation and non furnishing of legible copies, depriving the detenu a fair opportunity to make effective representation against the detention order before the authorities concerned.

(8)Accordingly, the detention order passed by the 2nd respondent dated 141.07.2023 in BCDFGISSSV No.181/2023 is hereby set aside and the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed. The detenu is directed to be set at liberty forthwith unless he is required in connection with any other case. [S.S.S.R., J.] [S.M, J.] 12.12.2023 AP Internet :Yes

To 1.The Additional Secretary, State of Tamil Nadu Home, Prohibition & Excise Department Fort St George, Chennai 600 009.

2.The Commissioner of Police Avadi City, Type V, Qtr No.5/1, HVF Estate Avadi, Chennai 600 054.

3.The Inspector of Police, T12 Poonamallee Police Station.

4.The Superintendent of Prison Central Prison II, Puzhal, Chennai 600 066.

5.The Public Prosecutor High Court, Madras.

S.S.SUNDAR, J., AND SUNDER MOHAN, J., AP H.C.P.No.2133/2023 12.12.2023