Allowed

Sanchaiah v. State of Tamilnadu, Rep.by

Madras HC9 Nov 2020HCP/851/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a Habeas Corpus petition filed by a father challenging his son's detention. The detention order under Section 2(f) of Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982 was set aside because the remand order was not properly translated into vernacular language, preventing effective representation.

What did the court decide?

The detention order in Memo No.207/BCDFGISSSV/2020 dated 18.03.2020 is set aside and the detenu is directed to be released forthwith.

Sanchaiah Vs State of Tamilnadu, Rep.by — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 09.11.2020

¶3

Coram

¶4

The Hon'ble Mr. Justice M.M.SUNDRESH and The Hon'ble Mr. Justice D.KRISHNAKUMAR

¶5

H.C.P. No. 851 of 2020

¶6

Sanchaiah .. Petitioner/Father of the detenue

¶7

Vs. 1.The State of Tamil Nadu, rep by The Secretary to Government, Department of Home, Prohibition and Excise, Secretariat, Fort St.George, Chennai - 600 009. 2.The Commissioner of Police, Greater Chennai, Office of Commissioner of Police, Vepery, Chennai-7.

¶8

3.The Superintendent of Prison, Central Prison-Puzhal-II, Puzhal, Chennai.

¶9

4.The Inspector of Police, P-5, MKB Nagar Police Station, Chennai-600 039. .. Respondents

¶10

Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a Writ of Habeas Corpus calling for the records in Memo No.207/BCDFGISSSV/2020, passed by the second respondent on 18.03.2020 on the file of the second respondent and quash the same as illegal and consequently direct the respondents to produce the Petitioner's son Vinoth, S/o.Sanchaiah, aged about 27 years, before this Court, who is now detained in Central Prison, Puzhal-II, Chennai, and set him at liberty.

¶11

For Petitioner : Mr.A.Elumalai

¶12

For Respondents

¶13

Mr.R.Prathap Kumar, : Addl. Public Prosecutor

¶14

Page numbers

¶15

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

¶16

ORDER

¶17

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

¶18

The petitioner is the father of Vinoth, S/o.Sanchaiah, aged about 27 years, who is the detenu. The detenu has been detained by the second respondent by his order in Memo No.207/BCDFGISSSV/2020 dated 18.03.2020, 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.

¶19

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.

¶20

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 remand order has not been properly 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.

¶21

4.On consideration of the submissions made on either side and upon perusal of the documents available on record especially Page Nos.235 & 237 of the booklet, it is clear that the remand order has not been properly translated in vernacular language. Thus the impugned detention order is liable to be set aside on this ground.

¶22

In the result, the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and the order of detention in Memo No.207/BCDFGISSSV/2020 dated 18.03.2020, passed by the second respondent is set aside. The detenu, namely, Vinoth, S/o.Sanchaiah, aged about 27 years, is directed to be released forthwith unless his detention is required in connection with any other case.

¶23

Sd/Assistant Registrar

¶24

mmi/ssm

¶25

Page numbers

¶26

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

¶27

¶28

1.The Secretary to Government,
Department of Home, Prohibition and Excise,
Secretariat, Fort St.George, Chennai - 600 009.
2.The Commissioner of Police,
Greater Chennai, Office of Commissioner of Police,
Vepery, Chennai-7.
3.The Superintendent of Prison,
Central Prison-Puzhal-II, Puzhal, Chennai.
4.The Inspector of Police,
P5-MKB Nagar Police Station,
Chennai-600 039.
5.The Joint Secretary to Government,
Public(Law & Order) Department,
Secretariat, Chennai.
6.The Public Prosecutor,
High Court, Madras.
H.C.P. No.851 of 2020
NMI(CO)
CB(09/12/2020)

¶29

Page numbers

¶30

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

Sanchaiah v. State of Tamilnadu, Rep.by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sanchaiah v. State of Tamilnadu, 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

Athilakshmi Vs the Superintendent of Police

Chandra Vs the State Rep.by Its

Thami Munnisa Vs the Commissioner of Police

Selvaraj Vs State Rep by

T.C.Veerappan Vs State Represented by

Kousalya Vs the Superintendent of Police