Allowed

Kamachi v. the State of Tamilnadu, Rep.by Its

Madras HC14 Jul 2021HCP/115/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This habeas corpus petition challenged the detention of a drug offender due to the absence of a vernacular translation in the arrest intimation. The High Court quashed the order, allowing the petitioner's prayer for the detenu's release.

What did the court decide?

The order of detention dated 18.12.2020 is set aside and the detenu Ulaganathan is directed to be released forthwith unless required for another case.

Kamachi Vs the State of Tamilnadu, Rep.by Its — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 14.07.2021

¶3

Coram

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.PRAKASH and THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.PONGIAPPAN

H.C.P.No.115 of 2021

Kamachi

W/o.Ulaganathan

.. Petitioner/Wife of the Detenue

¶9

Vs.

¶10

1.The State of Tamil Nadu, represented by its Secretary, Department of Home, Prohibition and Excise,

¶11

Fort St.George, Chennai – 600009.

¶12

2.The District Collector and District Magistrate, Thiruvannamalai District, Thiruvannamalai.

¶13

3.The Superintendent of Police, Thiruvannamalai District, Thiruvannamalai.

¶14

4.The Inspector of Police, Kannamangalam Police Station, Thiruvannamalai District.

¶15

5.The Superintendent, Central Prison, Salem, Salem District. .. Respondents

¶16

Habeas Corpus Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a writ of Habeas Corpus calling for the entire records in D.O.No.137/2020 C-2 dated 18.12.2020 on the file of second respondent herein and quash the same as illegal and direct the respondents to produce the detenu Ulaganathan S/o.Margapandhu, aged 48 years, now confined at Central Prison, Salem, before this Hon'ble Court and set him at liberty to secure ends of justice.

¶17

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

¶18

For Petitioner : Mr.R.Sankarasubbu For Respondents: Mr.R.Muniyapparaj Government Advocate [Crl.side]

¶19

ORDER

¶20

[Order of the Court was made by P.N.PRAKASH, J]

¶21

The petitioner is the wife of the detenu viz., Ulaganathan S/o.Margapandhu, aged 48 years. The detenu has been detained by the second respondent by his order in D.O.No.137/2020-C2 dated 18.12.2020, holding him to be a "Drug Offender", as contemplated under Section 2(e) of Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982. The said order is under challenge in this Habeas Corpus Petition.

¶22

We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate [Crl.side] appearing for the respondents. We have also perused the records produced by the Detaining Authority.

¶23

Though 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 arrest intimation pertaining to the ground case has not been translated in vernacular language. He further submitted that the detaining authority, while detaining the detenu, has not furnished the legible copies of the documents relied on by him. This deprived the detenu from making effective representation. Therefore, on these grounds, the detention order is liable to be quashed.

¶24

On consideration of the submissions made on either side and upon perusal of the documents available on record especially Page No.27 of the booklet, it is clear that the arrest intimation pertaining to the ground case has not been translated in vernacular language. Thus, the impugned detention order is liable to be set aside on this ground.

¶25

In the result, the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and the order of detention in D.O.No.137/2020-C2 dated 18.12.2020 passed by the second respondent is set aside. The detenu, viz., Ulaganathan S/o.Margapandhu, aged 48 years, is directed to be released forthwith unless his detention is required in connection with any other case.

¶26

Sd/-

¶27

Assistant Registrar(CS III)

¶28

//True Copy//

¶29

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶30

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

¶31

¶32

1.The Secretary, Department of Home, Prohibition and Excise, Fort St.George, Chennai – 600009.

¶33

2.The District Collector and District Magistrate, Thiruvannamalai District, Thiruvannamalai.

¶34

3.The Superintendent of Police, Thiruvannamalai District, Thiruvannamalai.

¶35

4.The Inspector of Police, Kannamangalam Police Station, Thiruvannamalai District.

¶36

5.The Superintendent, Central Prison, Salem, Salem District.

¶37

6.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras. 7.The Joint Secretary to Government, Public (Law & Order) Fort St. George, Chennai.-9

¶38

H.C.P.No.115 of 2021

¶39

srg 15/07/2021

¶40

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

Kamachi v. the State of Tamilnadu, Rep.by Its

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kamachi v. the State of Tamilnadu, Rep.by Its

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

Nanthini Vs the Secretary to the Government

Nirmala Vs the Secretary to Government

Aandal Vs the Additional Chief Secretary to Government

S.Rajeshwari Vs the Superintendent of Police

Syed Ibrahim Vs the State Rep.by Its

Maria Pushpam Vs the Commissioner of Police