Anusuya vs The State Of Tamil Nadu ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 13687 Mad

Citation : 2023 Latest Caselaw 13687 Mad
Judgement Date : 10 October, 2023

Madras High Court

Anusuya vs The State Of Tamil Nadu ... on 10 October, 2023

                                                                          H.C.P.No.1238 of 2023

                                   IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

                                                  DATED : 10.10.2023

                                                       CORAM :

                                   THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S. SUNDAR
                                                          AND
                                  THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN

                                                  H.C.P.No.1238 of 2023

                     Anusuya                                              ... Petitioner

                                                           Vs.

                     1.The State of Tamil Nadu represented by
                       The Principal Secretary to Government,
                       Home, Prohibition and Excise Department,
                       Fort St. George, Chennai – 600 009.

                     2.The District Collector and District Magistrate,
                       Nagapattinam District.

                     3.The Superintendent of Police,
                       Nagapattinam District.

                     4.The Superintendent,
                       Central Prison,
                       Trichy District.

                     5.The Inspector of Police,
                       Kilvelur Police Station,
                       Nagapattinam District.                              ... Respondents


                     Page 1 of 8


https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
                                                                                   H.C.P.No.1238 of 2023




                     Prayer : Habeas Corpus Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution
                     of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Habeas Corpus to call for the
                     entire records connected with the impugned order of detention passed by the
                     2nd respondent in C.O.C.No.21 of 2023 dated 18.05.2023 and quash the
                     same, consequently, directing the respondents to produce the detenu,
                     namely, the petitioner's husband Thiru.Rajesh @ Mathavan, aged about 32
                     years, detailed in the Central Prison, Trichy, before this Court and set him at
                     liberty.


                                       For Petitioner        :     Mr.T.Elumalai

                                       For Respondents       :     Mr.E.Raj Thilak
                                                                   Additional Public Prosecutor


                                                         ORDER

(Order of the Court was made by S.S. SUNDAR, J.)

The petitioner, wife of the detenu Thiru.Rajesh @ Mathavan,

S/o.Rajendran, has come forward with this petition challenging the

detention order passed by the 2nd respondent dated 18.05.2023 slapped on

her son, branding him as "Bootlegger" under the Tamil Nadu Prevention of

Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Forest Offenders,

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis H.C.P.No.1238 of 2023

Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders, Sand Offenders, Slum Grabbers and

Video Pirates Act, 1982 [Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982].

2.Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned

Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents.

3.Though several grounds have been raised by the petitioner, the

learned counsel for the petitioner pointed out there is a delay in passing the

order of detention. In the present case, though the detenu was arrested on

11.03.2023, the Detention Order was passed only on 18.05.2023.

4.The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sushantha Kumar

Banik Vs. State of Tripura and Others reported in AIR 2022 SC 4715, has

dealt with similar situation and has held in paragraph No.21 as follows:-

“In the present case, the circumstances indicate that the detaining authority after the receipt of the proposal from the sponsoring authority was indifferent in passing the order of detention with greater promptitude. The “live and proximate link” between

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis H.C.P.No.1238 of 2023

the grounds of detention and the purpose of detention stood snapped in arresting the detenu. More importantly the delay has not been explained in any manner & though this point of delay was specifically raised & argued before the High Court as evident from Para 14 of the impugned judgment yet the High Court has not recorded any finding on the same.”

5.The Hon'ble Supreme Court was persuaded to allow the Appeal

filed before it mainly on the ground that delay in passing the Order of

Detention from the date of the proposal would snap the ''live and proximate

link'' between prejudicial activities and the purpose of detention. Therefore,

failure on the part of the Detaining Authority in explaining such delay as in

the present case also is a valid ground for quashing the Detention Order.

6.The learned counsel for the petitioner further pointed out that,

though the Detaining Authority has referred to the order passed in similar

case, namely, Crl.M.P.No.2683 of 2021, dated 14.09.2021, the translated

copy of the order relied upon by the Detaining Authority has not been

furnished to the petitioner as seen from the Booklet. It is in this

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis H.C.P.No.1238 of 2023

circumstances, the learned counsel for the petitioner stated that serious

prejudice has been caused to the petitioner for making effective

representation.

7.The above issue is already covered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in

the case of Powanammal Vs. State of Tamil Nadu reported in (1999) 2

SCC 413, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that what applies to

a document, would equally apply to furnishing translated copy of the

document in the language known to and understood by the detenue. In the

said judgment, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has further held as follows :

''6.The short question that falls for our consideration is whether failure to supply the Tamil version of the order of remand passed in English, a language not known to the detenue, would vitiate her further detention.

......

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

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis H.C.P.No.1238 of 2023

any other case. The appeal is accordingly allowed.''

8.It is seen from the Booklet that the order relied upon by the

Detaining Authority is in English and the translated copy of the said

document is not furnished to the detenu for making effective representation.

Since a specific stand has been taken that serious prejudice is caused to the

petitioner, this Court finds that the failure to furnish translated copy of the

order passed in the similar case also vitiates the Detention Order.

9.In view of the aforesaid reasons, the detention order passed by the

2nd respondent dated 18.05.2023 in C.O.C.No.21 of 2023 is hereby set aside

and the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed. The detenu viz., Thiru.Rajesh @

Mathavan, S/o.Rajendran, aged 32 years, is directed to be set at liberty