Amul @ Amulraj vs The Secretary to the Government, Prohibition and Excise Department and The Commissioner of Police

P. Sathasivam, J.—The petitioner, who is detained as ''Goonda'' as contemplated under the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities

of Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Forest Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders, Slum Grabbers and Video Pirates Act, 1982 (Tamil

Nadu Act 14 of 1982) by the impugned detention order dated 23.08.2005, challenges the same in this Petition.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Government Advocate for the respondents.

At the outset, learned counsel for the petitioner, by drawing our attention to paragraph No. 4 of the grounds of detention, both English and

Tamil version, points out that the English version refers only one Crime Number, viz., Cr. No. 1115 of 2005, relating to the ground case on the file

of S. 11 Tambaram Police Station, whereas, the Tamil version refers to three Crime Numbers, viz., Cr. Nos.1054 of 2005 and 1092 of 2005,

relating to two adverse cases and Cr. No. 1115 of 200 5 in respect of the ground case. According to him, in view of the variation/discrepancy

between the English and Tamil version of the grounds of detention, the detenu was not in a position to make effective representation. He also

contended that a reading of the English version shows the awareness of the Detaining Authority only with regard to the case in Crime No. 1115 of

2005, on the other hand, the Tamil version shows that the Detaining Authority had taken note of all the cases. According to him, in view of such

discrepancy and in the absence of any explanation by the person concerned, the detention order is liable to be quashed.

In the light of the said contention, we verified paragraph No. 4 of both English and Tamil version of the grounds of detention. As rightly pointed

out, in the English version of the grounds, the Detaining Authority has considered only the ground case, viz., Cr. No. 1115 of 2005, and absolutely

there is no information regarding his awareness in respect of other two cases though the same have been referred to in the Tamil version. Learned

Government Advocate submits that it is a mistake, however, according to him, inasmuch the detenu was furnished with all the remand orders in the

booklet supplied to him, the detenu is in no way prejudiced. As stated earlier, on going through all the materials, particularly paragraph No. 4 of

the English version of the grounds of detention, which shows the failure on the part of the Detaining Authority to take note of the other two adverse

cases, we are satisfied that the ultimate order passed by the Detaining Authority is vitiated.

Accordingly, the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and the impugned order of detention is quashed. The detenu is directed to be set at liberty

forthwith from the custody unless he is required in some other case or cause.