Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 2982 (MAD)

Pramela v. Secretary to Government Chennai

2013-08-20

C.T.SELVAM, V.DHANAPALAN

body2013
Judgment : V. Dhanapalan, J. 1. The petitioner is the wife of the detenu. The detenu has been branded as a "Bootlegger" as contemplated under Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982 and detained under the order of the 2nd respondent passed in B.D.F.G.I.S.S.V. No.76/2013 dated 30.04.2013. 2. The ground case alleged against the detenu is one registered on 06.04.2013 by the Inspector of Police, PEW, Madurantakam, in Crime No.169 of 2013 under Sections 4(1)(aaa), 4(1-A) of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act r/w 7 & 14 of R.S. Rules, 2000. Aggrieved by the order of detention, the present petition has been filed. 3. Though the learned counsel for the petitioner has raised several grounds, the only ground urged before us is that, the Tamil version of the bail order dated 28.12.2012 granted in Crl.O.P.No.31971 of 2012 is not furnished to the detenu. He would contend that non-furnishing of the documents in the language familiar to the detenu is prejudicial to his rights and therefore, the detention order is vitiated. 4. We have heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor also on the above submission and perused the records. 5. In paragraph 5 of the detention order, the bail order dated 28.12.2012 granted by this Court in Crl.O.P.No.31971 of 2012 is relied on by the detaining authority to detain the detenu in the ground case. While relying on the said document for arriving at a conclusion that the detenu is a "Bootlegger", the detaining authority has not taken into account that the said bail order has been furnished to the detenu only in English and not in the language known to the detenu. 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. In this case, the Tamil version of the said bail order is not furnished to the detenu, thereby depriving his right guaranteed under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India. Therefore, the detention order passed against the detenu is vitiated in law. 6. For the above reasons, in our view, non-supply of the Tamil version of the English document, i.e. the bail order dated 28.12.2012 granted by this Court in Crl.O.P.No.31971 of 2012, on the facts and in the circumstances, renders the continued detention of the detenu illegal. Therefore, the detention order passed against the detenu is vitiated in law. 6. For the above reasons, in our view, non-supply of the Tamil version of the English document, i.e. the bail order dated 28.12.2012 granted by this Court in Crl.O.P.No.31971 of 2012, on the facts and in the circumstances, renders the continued detention of the detenu illegal. Hence, the impugned detention order passed by the 2nd respondent, detaining the detenu, namely, Mahesh, aged 33 years, S/o.Thiru.Krishnan made in B.D.F.G.I.S.S.V. No.76/2013 dated 30.04.2013, is quashed and the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed. The above named detenu, who is detained in Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai, is ordered to be set at liberty forthwith, unless his custody is required in connection with any other case. However, it is made clear that the present order shall not give any advantage to the detenu in any of the regular proceedings.