Madras High Court
Muniyamma vs State Of Tamil Nadu Rep.By on 23 November, 2023
Author: S.S.Sundar
Bench: S.S.Sundar
HCP.No.1631/2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED 23.11.2023
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR . JUSTICE S.S.SUNDAR
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN
H.C.P.No.1631/2023
Muniyamma .. Petitioner
Versus
1.State of Tamil Nadu rep.by
The Secretary,
Home, Prohibition & Excise Department
Fort St.George, Chennai-600 009.
2.The Commissioner of Police
Avadi City Police Commissioner,
O/o.The Commissioner of Police
Avadi, Chennai 600 054.
3.The Superintendent of Police
Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai-66.
4.The Inspector of Police
E3 Minur Police Station
Tiruvallur District. .. Respondents
1
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
HCP.No.1631/2023
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 detention order in Memo No.159/BCDFGISSSV/2023 dated
23.06.2023 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 Sankar, son of Gopal, the detenu now confined in Central
Prison, Puzhal, Chennai, before this Court and set the petitioner's son Ragul
David @ Kutta, son of Thangamani, aged about 23 years the detenu herein,
set him at liberty.
For Petitioner : Mr.V.Mannar
For Respondents : Mr.E.Raj Thilak
Additional Public Prosecutor
assisted by Mr.Aravind.C
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
23.06.2023 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
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 the details in
the Remand Order of the detenu in the ground case found in page No.82
has been improperly translated.
(4)On a perusal of the Booklet, in particular, page No.127, the English
version of the Remand Order in the ground case, it is seen that in the
cause title of the Remand Order, the Police Station and the offences in the
ground case are mentioned as ''E3 Minjur Police Station, Crime
No.225/2023 and u/s.147, 148, 324, 307 and 506[2] IPC''. Whereas in
the vernacular language, the said details are furnished as ''nrhHtuk;
fhty; epiyak;. F/vz;/228-2023. 429 ,jr. 11(vy;)
tpy';Ffs; tijj; jLg;g[r; rl;lk; 1960''. Hence, it is seen that
there is an improper translation of the Remand Order pertaining to the
Ground case.
(5)It is in the said circumstances, this Court finds that serious prejudice is
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
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
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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
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.
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
23.06.2023 in Memo No.159/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.]
23.11.2023
AP
Internet :Yes
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
To
1.The Secretary,
State of Tamil Nadu
Home, Prohibition & Excise Department
Fort St.George, Chennai-600 009.
2.The Commissioner of Police
Avadi City Police Commissioner,
O/o.The Commissioner of Police
Avadi, Chennai 600 054.
3.The Superintendent of Police
Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai-66.
4.The Inspector of Police
E3 Minur 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
23.11.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
