Allowed

K.Anjammal v. State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by

Madras HC21 Dec 2020HCP/1170/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

HC Madras quashed a detention order dated 02.06.2020 holding the petitioner's son as a goonda. The court held that the failure to translate the post mortem certificate into a vernacular language deprived the detenu of effective representation, rendering the detention illegal.

What did the court decide?

Detention order of 02.06.2020 set aside; detenu Kalaivanan directed to be released forthwith unless detention is required for any other case.

K.Anjammal Vs State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by — Bail and Remand | Madras HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 21.12.2020

¶3

Coram

¶4

The Hon'ble Mr. Justice M.M.SUNDRESH and The Hon'ble Mr. Justice D.KRISHNAKUMAR H.C.P. No. 1170 of 2020

¶5

K. Anjammal ..Petitioner/Mother of the Detenue

¶6

Vs. 1. The State of Tamil Nadu, rep. By The Additional Chief Secretary to the Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Secretariat, Chennai 600 009.

¶7

The District Collector and District Magistrate, O/o. The District Collector and District Magistrate, Ariyalur District, Ariyalur.

¶8

The Superintendent of Police, Ariyalur District, Ariyalur.

¶9

The Superintendent, Central Prison, Tiruchirappalli.

¶10

The Inspector of Police, Keelapalur Police Station, Ariyalur, Ariyalur District. ..Respondents

¶11

Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of Writ of Habeas Corpus calling for the entire records in connection with the detention order passed in Cr.M.P.No.55/2020 dated 02.06.2020 on the file of the 2nd respondent herein and set aside the same as illegal and direct the respondents to produce the body or person of the petitioner's son namely Kalaivanan, S/o. Kanagasabai, male aged 20 years, who is detained in Central Prison, Tiruchirappalli before this Court and set him at liberty.

¶12

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶13

For Petitioner : Mr.K.A.S.Prabhu For Respondents :^{Mr.R.Prathap Kumar,} Addl. Public Prosecutor

¶14

ORDER

¶15

[Order of the Court was made by M.M.SUNDRESH, J.]

¶16

The petitioner is the mother of Kalaivanan, S/o. Kanagasabai, aged 20 years, who is the detenu. The detenu has been detained by the second respondent by his order in Cr.M.P.No.55/2020 dated 02.06.2020,holding him to be a "Goonda", as contemplated under Section 2(f) of Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982. The said order is under challenge in this Habeas Corpus Petition.

¶17

We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents. We have also perused the records produced by the Detaining Authority.

¶18

3.Though the learned counsel for the petitioner has raised several other grounds to assail the order of detention, he has mainly focused his argument on the ground that the post mortem certificate has not been translated in vernacular language. This deprived the detenu from making effective representation. Therefore, on this sole ground, the detention order is liable to be quashed.

¶19

4.On consideration of the submissions made on either side and upon perusal of the documents available on record especially Page Nos.50 & 51 of the booklet, it is clear that the post mortem certificate has not been translated in vernacular language. Thus the impugned detention order is liable to be set aside on this ground.

¶20

In the result, the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and the order of detention in Cr.M.P.No.55/2020 dated 02.06.2020 passed by the second respondent is set aside. The detenu, namely, Kalaivanan, S/o. Kanagasabai, aged 20 years, is

¶21

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶22

directed to be released forthwith unless his detention is required in connection with any other case.

¶23

Sd/Assistant Registrar

¶24

//True Copy//

¶25

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶26

mmi/ssm

¶27

To
1. The Additional Chief Secretary to the
Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise
Department,
Secretariat, Chennai 600 009.
2. The District Collector and District Magistrate,
O/o. The District Collector and District Magistrate,
Ariyalur District, Ariyalur.
3. The Superintendent of Police,
Ariyalur District, Ariyalur.
4. The Superintendent,
Central Prison, Tiruchirappalli.
5. The Inspector of Police,
Keelapalur Police Station, Ariyalur,
Ariyalur District.
6. The Public Prosecutor,
High Court, Madras.
7. The Joint Secretary to Government,
Public (law and order) Department,
Secretariat, Chennai.
H.C.P. No.1170 of 2020
CO(NMI)
BDL/18/01/2021

¶28

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

K.Anjammal v. State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.Anjammal v. State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

J.Naseema Vs the Secretary to Governement

Ellammal Vs Government of Tamilnadu

V.Kalpana Vs Secretary Chennai

Amsa Vs the State of Tamil Nadu

P.Rajathi Vs the Secretary to the Government

Sathyaraj Vs the State Rep.by