Savithri vs The State of Tamil Nadu

P. Sathasivam, J.—The sister of the detenu challenges the detention order dated 12.12.2004 detaining her brother Iruthayaraj @ James as

Goonda u/s 3(2) of 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).

Learned counsel for the petitioner, after taking us through the grounds of detention and all other connected materials, has raised the following

contentions:-

(i) Since the detenu is not conversant with English language, in the absence of supply of translated version of the remand extension order, the

impugned detention is liable to be quashed.

(ii) Even though the Detaining Authority has referred to the confession statements of three accused, the same were not furnished to him.

Coming to the first contention, learned Government Advocate has brought to our notice that based on the representation of the detenu, Tamil

version of the remand extension order was supplied to the detenu and the same was acknowledged by him on 26.01.2005. In such circumstances,

the first contention is liable to be rejected.

Coming to the second contention, as rightly pointed out by the learned Government Advocate, a perusal of paragraph No. 3 (ii) of the grounds

of detention shows that the reference made with regard to the confession statements, said to have been made by three accused, is only a part of

reference and they were not relied on by the Detaining Authority. Inasmuch as the Detaining Authority, while narrating the occurrence, has only

referred to the confession statement of other accused, we are satisfied that even in the absence of supply of copy of the same, the Detaining

Authority cannot be faulted with. Accordingly, we reject the said contention also.

In the light of what is stated above, there is no valid ground for interference. Accordingly, the Habeas Corpus Petition is dismissed.