IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS Dated:- 27.02.2008 Coram:- The Hon'ble Mr. Justice P.D.DINAKARAN and The Hon'ble Mr. Justice R.REGUPATHI Habeas Corpus Petition No.845 of 2007 Saravanan ... Petitioner vs. 1. The Secretary to Government, Prohibition & Excise Department, Secretariat, Chennai 600 009. 2. Commissioner of Police, Chennai City, Egmore, Chennai 600 008. ... Respondents Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of a writ of habeas corpus to call for the records relating to detention order No.106/2007, dated 19.03.2007, passed by the Commissioner of Police, Chennai, the second respondent herein and set aside the same and direct the respondents to produce the body of detenu Saravanan, S/o.Mohanraj, aged about 29 years, now confined in Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai, before Court and set him at liberty. For Petitioner : Mr.S.Ramesh Babu For Respondents : Mr.N.R.Elango, Addl. Public Prosecutor. J U D G M E N T (Delivered by R.REGUPATHI, J.) The petitioner herein challenges the impugned order of detention, dated 19.03.2007, whereby, he has been detained as ‘Immoral Traffic Offender’ as contemplated under the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Forest Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders, Sand Offenders, Slum Grabbers and Video Pirates Act, 1982 (Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982). 2. At the foremost, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, though the translated copy of the statement of the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ complainant/victim has been given to the detenu, her statement in Hindi has not been supplied to him so as to make him aware of the actual contents thereof. Further, by stating that anonymous letters, which find place at page Nos.132 to 148 of the Booklet supplied to the detenu, have been relied on by the Detaining Authority for arriving at the subjective satisfaction, learned counsel further submits that allegations have been made in those letters only as against the main accused and that the detenu has nothing to do with the same. According to him, inasmuch as the Detaining Authority relied on extraneous materials, the ultimate detention order is liable to be set aside. 3. Per contra, learned Additional Public Prosecutor submits that since the detenu does not know Hindi, translated copy of the statement was given to him. Further, even if such statement in Hindi was supplied to the detenu, the same cannot be utilised by him. So far as the contention put forth in respect of the anonymous letters are concerned, it is submitted that though allegations have been levelled against the main accused, there is a reference therein to the names of co-accused including the detenu, hence, those letters had been supplied to him as well. According to him, the case put forth by the prosecution is that the offences have been committed by the main accused in association with other co-accused including the detenu herein. 4. We have carefully considered the arguments advanced on either side in the light of the materials available before us. Admittedly, the detenu does not know Hindi and in such circumstance, it is the obligation on the part of the Detaining Authority to supply him with the translated copy of the statements/materials in the language known to him so that he can make effective representation. Accordingly, the Detaining Authority has supplied all such materials in the language known to the detenu ie., in Tamil, therefore, non- supply of the documents in Hindi would not in any way prejudice the detenu since he cannot understand the contents thereof. Hence, the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner on this aspect fails. 5. Insofar as the submission made with regard to the letters available at page Nos.132 to 148 of the Booklet and the allegations made therein are concerned, it is seen that the same had been written by the members of the public projecting their grievance on account of the illegal activities of the accused including the detenu herein under the leadership of the first accused. Inasmuch those letters have been referred to and relied on, the same have been supplied to the detenu. The detenu could project the plea of prejudice only if the said letters had not been supplied to him and those materials having been supplied, the same would only endorse the fairness on the part of the Detaining Authority. That being so, we do not find any substance in this segment of contention as well. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ In the result, the Habeas Corpus Petition is dismissed as devoid of merits. Sd/- Asst. Registrar. /true copy/ Sub Asst. Registrar. JI. To 1. The Secretary to Government, Prohibition & Excise Department, Secretariat, Chennai 600 009. 2. The Commissioner of Police, Chennai City, Egmore, Chennai 600 008. 3. The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras. HCP No.845 of 2007. nsm[co] gp/26.3. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/