JUDGMENT (Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a writ of habeas corpus to call for the records in connection with the order of detention passed by the second respondent in his office Ref.C3.D.O.No.64/2022 dated 30.12.2022 against the petitioner''s husband by name Thiru.Magendiran, S/o.Sekar, aged about 38 years, now confined at Central Prison, Vellore, Vellore District and set aside the same and direct the respondents to produce the above said detenu before this Court and set him at liberty.) M. Sundar, J. 1. When the captioned ''Habeas Corpus Petition'' (hereinafter ''HCP'' for the sake of convenience and clarity) was listed in the Admission Board on 01.03.2023, this Court made the following order: ''Captioned Habeas Corpus Petition (for brevity, ''HCP'') has been filed in this Court on 22.02.2023 inter-alia assailing a detention order dated 30.12.2022 bearing Reference Number in C.3/D.O.No.64/2022 made by the ''second respondent'' (hereinafter called as ''Detaining Authority'' for the sake of convenience and clarity). To be noted, fifth respondent is the Sponsoring Authority. 2. The wife of the detenu is the petitioner. 3. Mr.E.Kannadasan, learned counsel on record for habeas corpus petitioner, is before us. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the ground case qua the detenu, is for the alleged offence under Sections 147, 148, 341 and 302 of the Indian Penal Code (for brevity, ''IPC'') in Crime No.194 of 2022 on the file of the Alangayam Police Station, Thirupathur District, which was subsequently altered into one under Sections 147, 148, 149, 341, 302 read with 109 IPC. 4. The aforementioned detention order has been made on the premise that the detenu is a ''Goonda'' under Section 2(f) of the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Cyber Law Offenders, Drug Offenders, Forest Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders, Sand Offenders, Sexual Offenders, Slum Grabbers and Video Pirates Act, 1982 (Tamil Nadu Act No.14 of 1982) (hereinafter called as Act 14 of 1982 for the sake of convenience and clarity). 5. The detention order has been assailed inter-alia on the ground that the book-let supplied to the detenu found at Page Nos.13, 58, 59 and 201 are containing English version, but no vernacular version/known language of the detenu has been furnished. 6. Prima-facie case made out for admission of the HCP. Accordingly, Admit, Issue Rule Nisi, Call for records, returnable in four weeks. 7. 6. Prima-facie case made out for admission of the HCP. Accordingly, Admit, Issue Rule Nisi, Call for records, returnable in four weeks. 7. Mr.R.Muniyappa Raj, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, State of Tamil Nadu, High Court, Madras, accepts notice for all the respondents. 8. List the captioned HCP accordingly.'' 2. The aforementioned order made in the 01.03.2023 Admission listing shall be read as an integral part and parcel of this order which means that the short forms, short references and abbreviations used in the order in the Admission listing shall be used in the instant order also. 3. There are four adverse cases. The ground case which constitutes substantial part of substratum of the impugned preventive detention order is Crime No.194 of 2022 on the file of Alangayam Police Station for alleged offences under Sections 147, 148, 341 and 302 of IPC, subsequently altered into one under Sections 147, 148, 149, 341, 302 r/w 109 of IPC . Owing to the nature of the challenge to the impugned detention order, it is not necessary to delve into the factual matrix or be detained further by facts. 4. Mr.S.Senthilvel, learned counsel representing the counsel on record for petitioner and Mr.E.Raj Thilak, learned State Additional Public Prosecutor for all respondents are before us. 5. In the support affidavit qua captioned HCP, several grounds have been raised/urged but in the final hearing today, learned counsel for petitioner projected his argument in his challenge against the impugned preventive detention order on the point that translated copy of a document relied on by the detaining authority in a language which the detenu is conversant with, has not been furnished to the detenu. Elaborating on the submission, learned counsel drew our attention to page No.201 of the booklet which is the Post-mortem Certificate in the ground case. No Tamil translation of this document has been furnished to the detenu. We had the benefit of perusing the booklet. We also noticed that the Post-mortem Certificate forms part of the ground on which the impugned preventive detention order has been made. 6. As this turns on obtaining facts which are before us learned State Additional Public Prosecutor does not have much of a say. 7. Be that as it may we are informed that the literacy level of the detenu is 5th standard and he is a school drop out. 6. As this turns on obtaining facts which are before us learned State Additional Public Prosecutor does not have much of a say. 7. Be that as it may we are informed that the literacy level of the detenu is 5th standard and he is a school drop out. We are also informed that the detenu is conversant only with Tamil. We remind ourselves of Powanammal case i.e., Powanammal Vs. State of Tamil Nadu. The question which the Honourable Bench of the Supreme Court addressed to itself in a similar fact situation is captured in paragraph 6 and the manner in which a Honourable Bench of the Supreme Court answered this question is captured in paragraph 16. To be noted, Powanammal case is reported in (1999) 2 SCC 413 and paragraphs 6 and 16 {as in SCC journal} read 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 any other case. The appeal is accordingly allowed. '' 8. In the case on hand, we find that Post-mortem Certificate which has been relied on as part of the grounds of detention qua impugned preventive detention order is a crucial document and not furnishing the same in Tamil, the lone language known to the detenu has impaired his constitutional right to make an effective representation qua the impugned preventive detention order. We therefore have no hesitation in saying that the impugned preventive detention order deserves to be dislodged. 9. Ergo, the sequitur is, captioned HCP is allowed. Impugned detention order dated 30.12.2022 bearing reference C3/D.O.No.64/2022 made by the second respondent is set aside and the detenu Thiru.Magendiran, aged 38 years, son of Thiru.Sekar is directed to be set at liberty forthwith, if not required in connection with any other case / cases. There shall be no order as to costs.