Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 1320 (MAD)

Kaleem v. Secretary to the Government

2014-06-14

G.CHOCKALINGAM, V.DHANAPALAN

body2014
Judgment : V. Dhanapalan, J. 1. The petitioner is the detenu herein. He has been branded as a "Goonda" under the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982 and detained under the order of the 2nd respondent passed in Memo No.945/BDFGISSV/2013, dated 10.09.2013. 2. The detenu came to adverse notice in the following cases: S. No. Police Station & Crime No. Section of Law 1 Thirupathur Town Police Station, Crime No.263/2013 379 IPC 2 K-11 C.M.B.T. Police Station Crime No.539/2013 379 IPC 3 K-11 C.M.B.T. Police Station Crime No.737/2013 392 IPC The ground case alleged against the detenu is one registered on 23.07.2013 by the Inspector of Police, K-11 C.M.B.T. Police Station in Crime No.746/2013 for offences under Sections 341, 323, 336, 427, 397 and 506(ii) IPC. 3. Amidst several grounds raised to assail the impugned order of detention, learned counsel for the petitioner would mainly contend that the similar bail order relied on by the detaining authority in Crime No.1677/2012 granted in Crl.M.P.No.8172/2012 is furnished only in the Tamil version and not in the English version, which has deprived the detenu in making effective representation to the authorities concerned and therefore, on this sole ground, the detention order is liable to be quashed. 4. Heard Mr.P.Govindarajan, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, on the above submission. 5. For better appreciation of the case, relevant paragraph of the detention order is extracted hereunder: “4. ... The sponsoring authority has stated that the relatives of Thiru.Kaleem is taking action to take him out on bail by filing bail application for K-11 C.M.B.T. Police Station Crime No.539/2013, 737/2013 and 746/2013 before the appropriate court. Similarly, in a case registered under Section 379 IPC, the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Poonamallee granted bail for T-6, Avadi Police Station in Crime No.1677/2012 in Crl.M.P.No.8172/2012. ...” 6. On a perusal of the detention order and the booklet, it is seen that the similar bail order passed by the Judicial Magistrate No.II, Poonamallee, in Crime No.1677/2012 in Crl.M.P.No.8172/2012, relied on by the detaining authority, is furnished only in Tamil and the English version of the same is not available in the booklet. Generally, whichever document is relied on by the detaining authority, it must be furnished to the detenu in English and in the vernacular language. Absence of furnishing the same will deprive the petitioner's right to make an effective representation. Generally, whichever document is relied on by the detaining authority, it must be furnished to the detenu in English and in the vernacular language. Absence of furnishing the same will deprive the petitioner's right to make an effective representation. The same, which amounts to infringement of right ensured under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India, vitiates the order of detention. Thus, for the reason stated hereinabove, the impugned detention order cannot be sustained. 7. In view of the above, the impugned detention order dated10.09.2013 passed by the 2nd respondent vide Memo No.945/BDFGISSV/2013 detaining the detenu, namely Kaleem is quashed and the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed. The above named detenu is ordered to be set at liberty forthwith, unless his custody is required in connection with any other case.