Ashokkumar v. State Of Tamilnadu Rep.By

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 04.03.2024 CORAM :

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.S. RAMESH AND THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN H.C.P.No.2495 of 2023 Ashokkumar ... Petitioner Vs.

1.State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by the Additional Chief Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Fort St.George, Chennai - 600 009.

2.The Commissioner of Police, Greater Chennai, Vepery, Chennai - 600 007.

3.The Inspector of Police, G-1, Vepery Police Station, Chennai.

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

... Respondents PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus, calling for the records relating to the detention order in Memo No.507/BCDFGISSSV/2023 dated 27.10.2023

passed by the 2nd respondent under the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982 and set aside the same and direct the respondents to produce the petitioner Ashokkumar, aged about 24 years, S/o. Ilango, the detenu, now confined in Central Prison II, Puzhal, Chennai, before this Court and set the petitioner Ashokkumar, aged about 24 years, S/o. Ilango, the detenu herein at liberty. For Petitioner : Mr.R.Muthukumar For Respondents : Mr.E.Raj Thilak, Additional Public Prosecutor assisted by Mr.C. Aravind

ORDER

M.S.RAMESH, J.

AND SUNDER MOHAN , J.

The petitioner herein, who is the detenu, has come forward with this petition challenging the detention order passed by the second respondent dated 27.10.2023 slapped on him, 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 several grounds are raised in the petition, the learned counsel for the petitioner pointed out that in the original remand order on which reliance has been placed by the Detaining Authority, the injury caused to the first accused in the lower lip has been translated to the injury in the lower hip. In this circumstances, the learned counsel for the petitioner stated that a serious prejudice has been caused to the petitioner for making effective representation.

4. On a perusal of the Booklet, it is seen that page Nos.27 & 28 are the English and Tamil version of the remand order which has been wrongly translated. In the English version of the remand order, the injury to the first accused is mentioned in the lower lip, however, in the Tamil version, the injury to the first accused is mentioned in the lower hip. Since a specific stand has been taken that serious prejudice is caused to the petitioner, this Court finds that the failure to furnish a proper translated copy of the remand order, vitiates the Detention Order.

5. 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, 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.

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 non-supply 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. Hence, for the aforesaid reasons, the detention order passed by the second respondent on 27.10.2023 in No.507/BCDFGISSSV/2023, is hereby set aside and the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed. The detenu viz., Ashokkumar, aged about 24 years, S/o. Ilango, is directed to be set at liberty forthwith, unless he is required in connection with any other case. [M.S.R., J] [S.M., J] 04.03.2024 Index: Yes/No Internet:Yes/No Sni

To 1.The Additional Chief Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Fort St.George, Chennai - 600 009.

2.The Commissioner of Police, Greater Chennai, Vepery, Chennai - 600 007.

3.The Inspector of Police, G-1, Vepery Police Station, Chennai.

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

5.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.

M.S.RAMESH, J.

and SUNDER MOHAN , J.

Sni H.C.P.No.2495 of 2023 04.03.2024