IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS Dated : 29.7.2010 C O R A M The Honourable Mr. Justice C.NAGAPPAN and The Honourable Mr. Justice P.R.SHIVAKUMAR Habeas Corpus Petition No.539 of 2010 I.Daniel Inbaraj S/o. Issac .. Petitioner Vs. 1.The State, represented by the Secretary to the Government, Prohibition and Excise Department, Fort St.George, Chennai-600 009. 2. The Commissioner of Police, (Detaining Authority), Greater Chennai, Egmore, Chennai-600 005. .. Respondents PRAYER : Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus calling for the records in detention order passed in Memo No.81/BDFGISSV/2010 dated 20.2.2010 on the file of the second respondent herein and set aside the same and direct the respondents to produce the detenu i.e., the body of, Thiru. Justin Devadoss alias David, S/o. Issac, the detenu herein now confined in Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai before this Hon'ble Court and set him at liberty. For Petitioner : Mr.S.Shanmughavelayutham Senior Counsel for Mr.T.Vijayaraghavan For Respondents : Mr.M.Babu Muthu Meeran Additional Public Prosecutor O R D E R (Order of the Court was made by P.R.SHIVAKUMAR, J.) The brother of the detenu Justin Devadoss alias David is the petitioner in this Habeas Corpus Petition and he has challenged the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ order of detention passed by the second respondent, made in No.81/2010, dated 20.2.2010 directing the detention of the detenu under Tamil Nadu Act 14/1982 as a 'Goonda'. 2. In order to arrive at a subjective satisfaction that the detenu is a 'Goonda' as defined under Section 2(1(f) of the Tamil Nadu Act 14/1982 , the Detaining Authority has referred to fourteen adverse cases, namely, (1) Crime No.432/2009, for alleged offences under Sections 420 and 506(ii) IPC; (2) Crime No.337/2009, for alleged offence under Section 420 IPC; (3) Crime No.443/2009, for alleged offence under Section 420 IPC; (4) Crime No.444/2009; (5) Crime No.446/2009; (6) Crime No.448/2009; (7) Crime No.451/2009; (8) Crime No.452/2009; (9) Crime No.447/2009, all for alleged offence under Section 420 IPC; (10) Crime No.476/2009, for alleged offences under Sections 406, 420, 504 and 506 IPC, all on the file of Indira Nagar Police Station, Bangalore; (11) Crime No.61/2008, on the file of Salem C.C.B, for alleged offence under Section 420 IPC; (12) Crime No.69/2009, on the file of Chennai Sub Urban Police, for alleged offences under Sections 406, 420 r/w 34 IPC; (13) Crime No.14/2009, on the file of D.C.B. Krishnagiri, for alleged offences under Sections 420 and 506(ii) IPC and (14) Crime No.9/2009, on the file of E.O.W-II HQ, for alleged offence under Section 420 IPC, and also relied on two ground cases, namely, (1) E.O.W. Crime No.9/2009, on the file of Economic Offences Wing-II, for an offence under Section 420 IPC and (2) Crime No.1/2010, on the file of Economic Offences Wing-II, for offences under Sections 341, 352, 420, 506(i) IPC and Section 5 of TNPID Act. The said order of detention is challenged by the brother of the detenu in this petition. 3. Though a number of grounds have been raised in the petition to assail the order of detention, Mr.S.Shanmugavelayutham, learned Senior Counsel representing Mr.T.Vijayaraghavan, learned counsel on record for the petitioner, mainly relies on the contention that prejudice has been caused to the detenu in making an effective representation against the order of detention, as copies of relied on documents were not translated in the language known to the detenu and supplied to him. 4. We also heard Mr.Babu Muthu Meeran, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, on the above said submission. 5. In support of his contention that the detenu was not supplied with the translated Tamil copies of the documents which were relied on by the detaining authority in order to arrive at a subjective satisfaction that it was necessary to clamp an order of detention describing the detenu as a Goonda, the learned Senior Counsel pointed out the fact that a number of documents, which are in Kannada, have been translated into English and they have not been translated into Tamil and a number of documents which are https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ in English have also not been translated into Tamil and such translated copies have not been furnished to the detenu. It is the further contention of the learned Senior Counsel that the said fact of non-supply of the documents in the language known to the detenu was brought to the notice of the first respondent by way of a representation dated 25.3.2010, but the first respondent mechanically rejected the said representation making an erroneous observation that the detenu was conversant with English language and that the documents have been furnished to him in the said language and hence he was not prejudiced. It is the further submission of the learned Senior Counsel that the said observation in the rejection order shall stand falsified by the fact that the detaining authority itself has chosen to translate a number of documents in English into Tamil and supplied to the detenu which will show that the detaining authority itself was not sure whether the detenu was having a working knowledge in English. 6. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor, referring to the contention raised in the counter affidavit, submits that copies of some of the documents were not supplied to the detenu in Tamil and the respondents were content with the supply of copies of documents to detenu in English, because the respondents were aware of the fact that the detenu was conversant with English. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor has cited a Judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court in SHEETAL MANOJ GORE VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS (2006) 3 SCC (Cri) 314) in support of the contention of the respondents that non-supply of the documents in the mother tongue of the detenu will not prejudice him if at all it is proved that he had got a working knowledge in the language in which the documents have been supplied to him. 7. From the said Judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court, we are able to understand that, in the case before the Supreme Court though the detenu therein was not initially supplied with the copies of the documents in the language known to him, consequent to the representation made by him, they were supplied to him within ten days from the date of such request. A contention was also raised that the supply of those documents in the language desired by the detenu was made with a delay. But the said question was left open by the Honourable Supreme Court to be agitated by filing a separate petition. Therefore we are of the view that the said Judgment cited by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, does not lend any support to the contention raised on behalf of the respondents. 8. We are able to see that the confession statement of the detenu was recorded only in Tamil. The respondents https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ mainly rely on the document viz., a Memorandum of Agreement dated 13.11.2008, in which the detenu has signed as proprietor of a business concern he was running, to show that he has got working knowledge in English. It has been stated in the counter affidavit also that the detenu is a Diploma Holder doing business of his own and hence he knows English to speak, read and write. The mere fact that the detenu has signed into the Memorandum of Agreement as a proprietor of the concern which he was running will not be enough to show that he knows English. Such documents are commonly prepared with the help of Advocates or Document writers. Furthermore, if at all the respondents were very confident that the detenu new English and he had a good working knowledge in English so as to understand the contents of the documents supplied to him in English, there was no necessity to get the documents translated into Tamil and supply Tamil translated copies to him. The very fact that the second respondent translated a number of documents in English into Tamil and supplied them to the detenu in the form of booklet, will go against the contention of the respondents that the detenu was well-versed in English and he could understand all documents that were supplied to him in English. Even otherwise, when the detenu comes forward with a plea that he is handicapped as he has not been supplied with the documents in the language known to him, unless there is concrete evidence that he had made such a representation for ulterior purpose, the Authorities are bound to supply the copies in the language desired by him. Failure to do so will amount to denial of reasonable opportunity to make an effective representation against the order of detention. We are satisfied that the same is a vitiating factor and that will be the ground on which the order of detention can be set aside. 9. Accordingly, the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and the impugned order of detention, dated 20.2.2010, passed by the second respondent, is set aside. The detenu Thiru.Justin Devadoss alias David is ordered to be set at liberty forthwith, unless his custody is required in connection with any other case. Sd/ Asst.Registrar /true copy/ Sub Asst.Registrar vks https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ To:- 1.The Secretary to the Government of Tamil Nadu, Prohibition and Excise Department, Fort St.George, Chennai-600 009. 2. The Commissioner of Police, (Detaining Authority), Greater Chennai, Egmore, Chennai-600 005. 3.The Superintendent, Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai - 66 4. The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras. 5.The Joint secretary to Government, Public (Law & Order) Dept., Fort st.George, Chennai-9. 2 cc To Mr.T.Vijayaraghavan, Advocate, SR.55227 H.C.P. No.539 of 2010 ng(co) pmk.12.8.2010. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/