IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED 04.04.2017 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.NAGAMUTHU and THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE ANITA SUMANTH H.C.P No.1996 of 2016 Selvi ...Petitioner Vs
1. The State of Tamil Nadu, rep by its Secretary to the Government, Home, Prohibition & Excise (XVI) Department, Fort. St. George, Secretariat, Chennai-600 009
2. The District Collector and District Magistrate, The Collector Office, Coimbatore – 641 018 Coimbatore District
3. The Sponsoring Authority, The Inspector of Police, Pollachi West Police Station, Coimbatore District .. Respondents Habeas Corpus Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ, order or Direction in the nature of a Writ of Habeas Corpus to call for the records of the detaining authority, the District Collector and District Magistrate, Coimbatore, the second respondent herein made in Ref.Cr.M.P.No.10/G/2016/E1/dated 23.04.2016, detaining the detenu Saravanakumar, S/o Aruchamy, 19 years is a Goonda as contemplated under Sec.2(f) of the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982 at Borstal School, Pudukottai District and set aside the same and the set the detenu at liberty forthwith.
For Petitioner : Mr. P. Kalimuthu For respondents : Mr.V.M.R. Rajendran Addl. Public Prosecutor ORDER (Order of the Court was made by S. NAGAMUTHU,J.,) The petitioner, who is the mother of the detenu Saravanakumar, aged about 19 years has come up with this habeas corpus petition, challenging the detention order passed against her son Saravana Kumar by the second respondent, vide proceedings No. Ref.Cr.M.P.No.10/G/2016/E1/dated 23.04.2016, branding him as a "Goonda" under the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Forest Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders, Sand Offenders, Slum Grabbers and Video Pirates Act, 1982 [Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982].
2. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State and we have also perused the records carefully.
3. Though, several grounds were raised in the petition, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would mainly focus on the ground that many papers in the booklet which are in English version were not properly translated in Tamil version.
4. We have gone through the same. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would not dispute the said submission. We find that there is no proper translation from English version to Tamil version. This has resulted in the detenu being deprived of making an effective representation. Therefore, the detention order is vitiated and liable to be quashed on this ground alone.
5. In the light of the above facts and law, we have no hesitation in quashing the order of detention on the above mentioned ground. Accordingly, the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and the impugned detention order in Memo Ref.Cr.M.P.No.10/G/2016/E1/dated 23.04.2016, passed by the 2nd respondent is set aside. The detenu is directed to be released forthwith unless his presence is required in connection with any other case.
Index : Yes/no Internet : Yes/no sr (S.N.J.,) (A.S.M.J.,) 04-04-2017 To
1. The State of Tamil Nadu, rep by its Secretary to the Government, Home, Prohibition & Excise (XVI) Department, Fort. St. George, Secretariat, Chennai-600 009
2. The District Collector and District Magistrate, The Collector Office, Coimbatore – 641 018 Coimbatore District
3. The Sponsoring Authority, The Inspector of Police, Pollachi West Police Station, Coimbatore District
4. The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Chennai.
S.NAGAMUTHU,J.
And
ANITA SUMANTH,J.,
sr Order in H.C.P.No.1996 of 2016 04-04-2017 http://www.judis.nic.in