Madras High Court
Annakili vs State Rep.By on 21 November, 2023
Author: S.S.Sundar
Bench: S.S.Sundar
HCP.No.1605/2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED 21.11.2023
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR . JUSTICE S.S.SUNDAR
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN
H.C.P.No.1605/2023
Annakili .. Petitioner
Versus
State rep.by
1.The Additional Chief Secretary to Government,
Home, Prohibition & Excise Department
Secretariat, Government of Tamil Nadu
Fort St George, Chennai 600 009.
2.The Commissioner of Police
Avadi City.
3.The Superintendent of Police
Central Prison-II, Puzhal, Chennai.
4.The Inspector of Police [Crime]
T7 Tank Factory Police Station
Chennai. .. Respondents
1
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
HCP.No.1605/2023
Prayer:- Habeas Corpus Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution
of India praying for a Writ of Habeas Corpus calling for the records
pertaining to the order of detention dated 21.06.2023 passed by the 2nd
respondent in No.157/BCDFGISSSV/2023 and quash the same as illegal
and direct the respondent to produce the detenu Thiru Ajith @ Lip Ajith son
of Murugan, male, aged about 24 years, now confined at Central Prison-II,
Puzhal, Chennai before this Court and set him at liberty.
For Petitioner : Mr.S.Senthil Kumar
For Respondents : Mr.E.Raj Thilak
Additional Public Prosecutor
assisted by Mr.C.Aravind
ORDER
[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
21.06.2023 slapped on her son, 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.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
(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 the English version in the Booklet,
differs in the vernacular version. It is stated that there is an improper
translation pertaining to the adverse cases.
(4)On a perusal of the Booklet, in particular, page No.248, 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.
(5)It is in the said circumstances, this Court finds that serious prejudice is
caused to the detenu on account of improper translation in making
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
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:
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
''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.
.....
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
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.''
(7) 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.
(8)Accordingly, the detention order passed by the 2nd respondent dated
21.06.2023 in No.157/BCDFGISSSV/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.]
21.11.2023
AP
Internet :Yes
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
To
1.The Additional Chief Secretary to Government,
Home, Prohibition & Excise Department
Secretariat, Government of Tamil Nadu
Fort St George, Chennai 600 009.
2.The Commissioner of Police
Avadi City.
3.The Superintendent of Police
Central Prison-II, Puzhal, Chennai.
4.The Inspector of Police [Crime]
T7 Tank Factory Police Station
Chennai.
5.The Public Prosecutor
High Court, Madras.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.S.SUNDAR, J.,
AND
SUNDER MOHAN, J.,
AP
21.11.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
