Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2001 DIGILAW 1600 (MAD)

S. Jabarulla v. Commissioner of Police

2001-12-06

P.THANGAVEL, S.JAGADEESAN

body2001
Judgment : S. Jagadeesan, J. 1. The petitioner is the brother of the detenu, by name, Ibrahi, who had been detained as a Goonda as contemplated under Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982 pursuant to the impugned order of detention dated 21.6.2001 2. Theonly ground urged before us challenging the impugned order of detention is that the detenu was not furnished with the Tamil translated version of the order of remand and this would vitiate the impugned order of detention. As there is some merit in the contention and which has necessarily to be accepted in view of the precedence, we are not proposed to deal with the facts in detail. 3. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor also conceded that the Tamil translated version of the remand report was not furnished to the detenu inspite of having been asked for. 4. We carefully considered the representation of both the counsel. The Apex Court, in the case of Pownamamal v. State of Tamil Nadu, 1999 (1) CTC 347 : 1999 SCC (Cri) 231 has held as follows: "Advertising to the facts of this case, the appellant has made a representation for supply of the Tamil version of the copy of the order of remand and specifically stated that the detenu could not understand the English language. Admittedly, the Tamil version of the order of remand was not furnished to her. A perusal of the grounds shows that the order of remand was relied upon by the second respondent to reach subjective satisfaction, so the detenu need not show that any prejudice was caused to her due to the non-supply of the Tamil version of the order of remand. Therefore, the High Court is not correct i holding that the non-furnishing of the copy of the order of remand would not in any way prejudice the detenu." 5. Following the above laid principle, we have no other option except to agree with the contention of the learned counsel for the detenu. Accordingly, the impugned order of detention is set aside and the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed. The detenu is directed to be set at liberty forthwith unless his presence is required in connection with any other case.