Madras High Court
Abbas @ Pattas vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 23 November, 2023
Author: S.S.Sundar
Bench: S.S.Sundar
HCP.No.1797/2023
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.1797/2023
Abbas @ Pattas .. Petitioner
Versus
1.The State of Tamil Nadu
rep.by its Secretary to Government
Home, Prohibition and Excise Department
Secretariat,Chennai 600 009.
2.The Commissioner of Police
Avadi City, Chennai.
3.The Inspector of Police
T14, Mangadu Police Station
Chennai.
4.The Superintendent
Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai. .. Respondents
1
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
HCP.No.1797/2023
Prayer:- Habeas Corpus Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution
of India praying for a Writ of Habeas Corpus calling for the entire records
relating to petitioner's detention under Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982 vide
detention order dated 21.06.2023 on the file of the 2nd respondent herein
made in proceedings BCDFGISSSV No.155/2023 and quash the same as
illegal and consequently direct the respondents herein to produce the
petitioner namely Abbas @ Pattas aged 24 years son of Ismail before this
Court and set him at liberty now petitioner detained at Central Prison,
Puzhal, Chennai 600 066.
For Petitioner : Mr.C.C.Chellappan
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, detenu herein, has come forward with this petition
challenging the detention order passed by the 2nd respondent dated
21.06.2023 slapped on him, branding him as "Drug Offender" 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 points have been raised by the petitioner, the learned
counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Detaining Authority has
relied upon a similar case bail order in Crl.MP.No.1842/2020 to arrive at
the subjective satisfaction that the detenu is likely to be release on bail in
the ground case. However, the similar case bail order furnished to the
detenu in the Booklet in the vernacular language is illegible and could not
be read. Hence, it is stated that the detention order is liable to be quashed
on the ground of non-furnishing of legible copy of the vital document,
depriving the detenu of his valuable right to make effective representation
against the detention order to the authorities concerned.
(4)This Court, upon examination of the Booklet, is unable to discard the
contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner. It is seen from the
Booklet furnished to the detenu, in particular, pages No.116 to 118 the
bail order pertaining to the similar case in Crl.MP.No.1842/2020 in the
vernacular language, is not clear and the said document is illegible. The
furnishing of illegible copy of the document would deprive the detenu of
his valuable right to make effective representation to the authorities
against the order of detention.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
(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 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 follows:
''9.However, this Court has maintained a
distinction between a document which has been relied
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
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.
.....
16. For the above reasons, in our view, the non-
supply of the Tamil version of the English document, on
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
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)Accordingly, the detention order passed by the 2nd respondent dated
21.06.2023 in BCDFGISSSV No.155/2023 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.
[SSSRJ] [SMJ]
23.11.2023
AP
Internet : Yes
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
To
1.The Secretary to Government
State of Tamil Nadu
Home, Prohibition and Excise Department
Secretariat,Chennai 600 009.
2.The Commissioner of Police
Avadi City, Chennai.
3.The Inspector of Police
T14, Mangadu Police Station
Chennai.
4.The Superintendent
Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai.
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
