Allowed

Ranganayagi v. State Rep. by

Madras HC19 Jul 2021HCP/80/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this habeas corpus petition, the petitioner challenged the detention of her husband as a drug offender under Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982. The court quashed the detention order solely because the arrest intimation was not provided in vernacular language, thereby depriving the detenu of effective representation. The detenu was ordered to be released.

What did the court decide?

The detention order in C.M.P.No.27/Drug Offender/2020(M1) dated 17.12.2020 passed by the 2nd respondent is set aside. The detenu Krishna Perumal is directed to be released forthwith.

Ranganayagi Vs State Rep. by — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED 19.07.2021

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE P.N.PRAKASH AND THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE R.PONGIAPPAN

¶5

H.C.P.No.80 of 2021

¶6

Ranganayagi

¶7

..Petitioner/Wife of the detenue

¶8

Vs.

¶9

State rep. by 1.The Secretary to Government Home, Prohibition and Excise Department Secretariat, Fort St. George, Chennai-9

¶10

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

¶11

3.The Superintendent of Police Namakkal District, Namakkal

¶12

4.The Superintendent Central Prison, Salem

¶13

5.The Inspector of Police Namakkal Police Station Namakkal District

¶14

.. Respondents

¶15

Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS to call for the records in C.M.P.No.27/Drug Offender/2020(M1) dated 17.12.2020 on the file of the 2^nd respondent and quash the same as illegal and direct the respondent to produce the detenu viz., Krishna Perumal, aged about 42 years, S/o.Murugan, confined at Central Prison, Salem before this Hon'ble Court and set him at liberty.

¶16

For Petitioner : Mr.S.Sengkodi

¶17

For Respondents : Mr.R.Muniyapparaj

¶18

Government Advocate (Crl. Side)

¶19

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

¶20

O R D E R

¶21

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

¶22

The petitioner is the wife of the detenu viz., Krishna Perumal, aged about 42 years, S/o.Murugan. The detenu has been detained by the 2^nd respondent by his order dated 17.12.2020 in C.M.P.No.27/Drug Offender/2020(M1), 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.

¶23

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.

¶24

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 arrest intimation 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.

¶25

4.On consideration of the submissions made on either side and upon perusal of the documents available on record especially Page Nos.54 & 55 of the booklet, it is clear that the arrest intimation has not been properly translated in vernacular language. Thus, the impugned detention order is liable to be set aside on this ground.

¶26

In the result, the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and the order of detention in C.M.P.No.27/Drug Offender/2020(M1), dated 17.12.2020, passed by the 2^nd respondent is set aside. The detenu viz., Krishna Perumal, aged about 42 years, S/o.Murugan, is directed to be released forthwith, unless his detention is required in connection with any other case.

¶27

s/dAssistant Registrar(CS VII)

¶28

True Copy

¶29

Sub-Assistant Registrar

¶30

gya

¶31

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

¶32

¶33

1.The Secretary to Government Home, Prohibition and Excise Department Secretariat, Fort St. George,Chennai-9

¶34

2.The Joint Secretary to Government Public, Law and Order Department Secretariat, Chennai-9

¶35

3.The District Magistrate and District Collector Namakkal District, Namakkal

¶36

4.The Superintendent of Police Namakkal District, Namakkal

¶37

5.The Superintendent Central Prison, Salem

¶38

6.The Inspector of Police Namakkal Police Station Namakkal District

¶39

7.The Public Prosecutor High Court, Madras.

¶40

H.C.P.No.80 of 2021

¶41

JPL(CO) EU 20/07/2021

¶42

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

Ranganayagi v. State Rep. by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ranganayagi v. State 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

Jahangir Vs the Secretary to Government of Tamilnadu

Balakrishnan Vs the State of Tamil Nadu Rep. by Its

Raniammal Vs the Secretary to Government

A.Ramkumar Vs the Secretary to Govt

B.Kowsalaya Vs the Secretary to Government

Sharmila Banu Vs the Secretary to Government