Madras High Court
P. Mota Ram vs The State Represented By Secretary To ... on 6 September, 2024
Author: S.M.Subramaniam
Bench: S.M.Subramaniam, V.Sivagnanam
HCP.No.2044 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 06.09.2024
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM
and
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.SIVAGNANAM
H.C.P.No.2044 of 2024
P. Mota Ram ... Petitioner
Vs.
1. The State Represented by Secretary to Government,
Home Prohibition and Excise Department,
Fort St. George, Chennai -9
2. The District Magistrate and District Collector,
Office of the District Collector and District Magistrate,
Erode District, Erode.
3. The Superintendent of Police,
Office of the Superintendent of Police,
Erode District.
4. The Superintendent of prison,
Central Prison, Coimbatore District.
5. The Inspector of Police,
Varappalayam Police Station,
Erode District. ... Respondents
Page 1 of 6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
HCP.No.2044 of 2024
PRAYER: The Habeas Corpus Petition is filed under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus, to call for the
records relating to the Detention Order passed by the second respondent on
22.07.2024 in Cr.M.P.No.37/Goonda/2024 C1 and to quash the same and
direct the respondents to produce the body of the detenue Nopa Ram, aged
27 years, S/o.Punamaram, before this Court and set him at liberty, now
detained at Central Prison, Coimbatore.
For Petitioner : Mr.C. Iyyapparaj
For Respondents : Mr.E.Raj Thilak
Additional Public Prosecutor
-----
ORDER
(Order of the Court was made by S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.)
The preventive detention order passed by the second
respondent dated 22.07.2024 is sought to be quashed in the present Habeas
Corpus Petition.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, as well as
the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
3. The detenue, in his confession statement, has stated that he is
native of State of Rajasthan and known language is Hindi. However, none
of the documents relied on by the Detention Authority has been translated
into the language known to the detenue, which caused prejudice to the
detenue to submit his representation in an effective manner.
4. 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, 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:
“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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
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 the facts and in the circumstances,
renders her continued detention illegal. We, therefore,
direct that the detenue be set free forthwith unless she
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
is required to be detained in any other case. The appeal
is accordingly allowed.”
5. 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.
6. Accordingly, the detention order passed by the second
respondent in Cr.M.P.No.37/Goonda/2024 C1, dated 22.07.2024 is hereby
set aside and the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed. The detenu viz., Nopa
Ram, aged 27 years, S/o. Punamaram, confined at Central Prison,
Coimbatore, is directed to be set at liberty forthwith, unless he is required in
connection with any other case.
[S.M.S., J.] [V.S.G., J.]
06.09.2024
Index : Yes/No
Speaking Order : Yes/No
Neutral Citation : Yes/No
asi
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.
and
V.SIVAGNANAM, J.
asi
To
1. The Secretary to Government,
Home Prohibition and Excise Department,
Fort St. George, Chennai -9
2. The District Magistrate and District Collector,
Office of the District Collector and District Magistrate,
Erode District, Erode.
3. The Superintendent of Police,
Office of the Superintendent of Police,
Erode District.
4. The Superintendent of prison,
Central Prison, Coimbatore District.
5. The Inspector of Police,
Varappalayam Police Station,
Erode District.
06.09.2024
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
