IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 28.02.2008 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.D.DINAKARAN AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.REGUPATHI H.C.P.No.6 of 2008 Thamizharasi .. Petitioner Vs 1. The Secretary to Government, Prohibition and Excise Department Secretariat, Chennai. 2. The District Magistrate and District Collector, Kancheepuram District Kancheepuram. .. Respondents Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issue of Writ of Habeas Corpus as stated therein. For Petitioner : Mr.P.Anbazhagan For Respondents : Mr.N.R.Elango, Addl. Public Prosecutor ----- O R D E R (Made by P.D.DINAKARAN,J.) The petitioner, mother of the detenu by name Arul, who was incarcerated at the Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai, pursuant to an order dated 12.12.2007 of the second respondent under the provisions of 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) branding him as a Goonda, has preferred this writ petition for issue of Writ of Habeas Corpus to call for the records in connection with the order of detention passed by the second respondent dated 12.12.2007 in BDFGISSV.No.80/2007, to set https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ aside the same and to direct the respondents to produce the detenu before this Court and set him at liberty. 2. The ground case, based on which the detention order was passed, is that on 19.11.2007, the complainant Jayakumar was threatened by the detenu at the knife point to part with his belongings and when he resisted, the detenu tried to stab him and out of fear and danger to life, the complainant gave his wrist watch and cash of Rs.150/- and thereafter, the complainant was kicked on his back by the detenu and the general public, who came for rescue, were also threatened by the detenu at the knife point, creating terror and panic situation at the spot. Based on the complaint given by the said Jayakumar, a case was registered in Chunambedu Police Station Crime No.595/2007 for offences under Sections 392, 397 IPC and during the course of investigation, the detenu was arrested and later, sent to Court for judicial remand. 3. The second respondent, taking into consideration the above ground case and finding that the detenue came to the adverse notice of the authorities in five cases, viz. four cases on the file of same police station in Crime Nos.388/2006, 389/2006, 395/2006 and 399/2006 and one on the file of Madurantakam Police Station in Crime No.559/2007 for various offences including an offence under Section 307 IPC, and having satisfied that there is a compelling necessity to detain the detenue in order to prevent him from indulging in the activities which are prejudicial to the maintenance of public order, ordered his detention dubbing him as a Goonda. 4.1. The detention order is assailed on the main ground of omission to set out certain lines in the detention order furnished to the detenu in the language known to him, which deprived of his opportunity to make effective representation objecting to the order of detention. 4.2. In para 5(i) of the English version of the grounds of detention, while substantiating the subjective satisfaction, the detaining authority has observed as follows:- " 5.(i) ... Further the recourse to normal criminal law will not have the desired effect of preventing him from indulging in such activities which are prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. Based on the materials placed before me, ..." Whereas, in the translated version given to the detenu in Tamil, the only language known to him, it is observed thus:- "nkYk; rhjhuz Fw;wr; rl;lg;gphpt.fspd; cjtpia ehLjy; nghjpa gyid juhky; ngha;tpLk; vd;gijak; ehd; ed;F mwpntd;/ vdf;F Kd;ghf jhf;fy; bra;ag;gl;l Mtz';fspypUe;J ///// " https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ According to the learned counsel, the above said underlined words found in the English version are the most relevant one, indicating the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority to detain the detenu under Act 14 of 1982 and in omission of the same in the Tamil version, vitiates the detention order itself. 5. We have heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor on the above point and perused the paper book placed before us. 6.1. Communicate is a strong word. It requires that sufficient knowledge of the basic facts consisting the grounds should be imparted effectively and fully to the detenue in writing in a language which he understands, so as to enable the detenue to make a purposeful and effective representation. Where the grounds are not properly translated, it would tantamount to not serving the grounds to the detenu and would thus vitiate the detention ex facie. 6.2. Concededly, in the instant case, as rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the words, viz., of preventing him from indulging in such activities which are prejudicial to the maintenance of public order, were totally omitted to be translated in the Tamil version furnished to the detenu. 7. In an identical matter, in H.C.P.No.19 of 2002 (K.Veeramani v. State of Tamil Nadu and another), whereunder a whole paragraph of the original order in English, was omitted to be translated in Tamil, the only language the detenu therein knows, a Division Bench of this Court, by order dated 25.06.2002, observed as follows:- " 10. The State's power to make orders of preventive detention is a power which is required to be exercised with utmost care and caution, and with scrupulous regard to the need to comply with every one of the constitutional guarantees as also the statutory requirements. The Courts have time and again emphasised that preventive detention is a hard law and strict compliance with the requirements of law will be insisted upon by the Courts. The duty of the State in this regard is a heavy one, but it is a duty, which must be discharged to the satisfaction of the Courts if it expects to make effective use of its powers of preventive detention. 11. The rationale for preventive detention is the need to protect society from persons whose conduct is inimical to the country's safety or society's welfare and the urgency of the need to take prompt action against them without having to wait for the normal procedures of the person being brought to trial and, thereafter, in case of conviction being incarcerated. The duty to protect the country and the society casts an obligation on the State to ensure that https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ whenever it exercises power of preventive detention, it exercises the same with due care and that the exercise conforms to other requirements of law. Omission to do so would be an instance of the State failing in its duty to protect the country and the society." The Division Bench, while observing thus, necessitated the Government and the officials concerned, to take necessary steps to prevent recurrence of such mistakes while passing the detention order and also to take appropriate action against the persons, who deliberately make omission by mala fide intentions, in order to protect the public from the very persons whose activity is considered by the State to be inimical to public welfare and whose detention is considered by the State itself to be necessary. 8.1. That apart, when a similar ground, as raised in this H.C.P., was raised before this Court in H.C.P. No.2 of 2007 (between R.Indira and State of Tamil Nadu and another), a Division Bench of this Court, by order dated 12.4.2007, while observing that the grounds of detention must be made known to the detenu in a language known to him, which is the constituent requirement of law, held that since the Tamil order of detention does not indicate about the conclusion of the detaining authority on factual aspect, the order of detention is liable to be quashed. 8.2. Similarly, on the similar ground, a Division Bench of this Court in H.C.P.No.1190 of 2007 (between Anbu vs. State of Tamil Nadu), held view that unless the detenue was made known as to the grounds of detention in clear terms, i.e., in the language known to her, in our considered opinion, undoubtedly, it would have caused prejudice to the detenue to submit her effective representation, since, as observed earlier, where the grounds are not properly translated, it would tantamount to not serving the grounds itself to the detenu and would thus vitiate the detention ex facie. In view of the above, we are of the confirmed view that the order of detention is liable to be set aside and accordingly, it is set aside. The habeas corpus petition is allowed. The detenu is directed to be set at liberty forthwith unless his presence is required in connection with any other case. sd/- Asst.Registrar /true copy/ Sub Asst.Registrar sra https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ To: 1. The Secretary to Government Prohibition and Excise Department Secretariat, Chennai-9. 2. The District Magistrate and District Collector, Kancheepuram District, Kancheepuram. 3. The Superintendent, Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai. 4. The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras. 5.The Joint Secretary, Public (Law and order) Fort.St.George,Chennai-9. H.C.P.No.6 of 2008 mdr [co] gkg/12.3 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/