Madras High Court
Mr.Chandiran vs The State Of Tamil Nadu Rep.By Its on 22 November, 2023
Author: S.S.Sundar
Bench: S.S.Sundar
HCP.No.1381/2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED 22.11.2023
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR . JUSTICE S.S.SUNDAR
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN
H.C.P.No.1381/2023
Mr.Chandiran .. Petitioner
Versus
1.The State of Tamil Nadu rep.by its
Secretary to Government,
Prohibition & Excise Department [Home]
Chennai 600 009.
2.The Commissioner of Police
Detaining Authority,
O/o.The Commissioner of Police
Avadi City, Chennai.
3.The Superintendent of Prison
Central Prison Puzhal, Chennai.
4.The Inspector of Police
E5 Sholavaram Police Station
Tiruvallur District. .. Respondents
1
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
HCP.No.1381/2023
Prayer:- Habeas Corpus Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution
of India praying for a Writ of Habeas Corpus calling for the records relating
to the detenu's detention order passed by the 2nd respondent vide Memo
No.162/BCDFGISSSV/2023 dated 23.06.2023 and set aside the same and
produce the petitioner's son Soundaraj @ Soundar son of Chandiran, male,
aged 27 years now detained in Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai before this
Court and set him at liberty forthwith.
For Petitioner : Mr.K.Sarathkumar
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, father of the detenu has come forward with this petition
challenging the detention order passed by the 2nd respondent dated
23.06.2023 slapped on his 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.266, it is seen that
bail order in Crl.MP.No.1759/2018 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.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
(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
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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
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.''
(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.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
(8)Accordingly, the detention order passed by the 2nd respondent dated
23.06.2023 in No.162/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.]
22.11.2023
AP
Internet :Yes
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
To
1.The Secretary to Government,
State of Tamil Nadu
Prohibition & Excise Department [Home]
Chennai 600 009.
2.The Commissioner of Police
Detaining Authority,
O/o.The Commissioner of Police
Avadi City, Chennai.
3.The Superintendent of Prison
Central Prison Puzhal, Chennai.
4.The Inspector of Police
E5 Sholavaram Police Station
Tiruvallur District.
5.The Public Prosecutor
High Court, Madras.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.S.SUNDAR, J.,
AND
SUNDER MOHAN, J.,
AP
22.11.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
