Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details


High Court of Madras

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation


M.Perumal v. The State of Tamil Nadu - H.C.P.No.920 of 2003 [2003] RD-TN 1002 (18 November 2003)


DATED: 18/11/2003





H.C.P.No.920 of 2003

M.Perumal .. Petitioner -Vs-

1. The State of Tamil Nadu,

rep. by the Secretary to Government,

Prohibition & Excise Department,


2. The District Magistrate and District


Thiruvannamalai District,

Thiruvannamalai. .. Respondents Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Habeas Corpus and quash order of detention made in No.D.O.33/2003-C2 dated 23.4.2003.

For Petitioner : Mr.A.K.S.Thahir

For respondents : Mr.M.K.Subramanian

Govt.Advocate(Crl. side) :ORDER

(Order of the Court was made by T.V. MASILAMANI,J.) The petition is filed by the uncle of the detenu challenging the detention order passed against the detenu by the District Magistrate and District Collector, Thiruvannamali dated 23.4.2003.

2. The second respondent passed the impugned order of detention against the detenu treating him as a BOOTLEGGER by virtue of the powers conferred under Section 3(1) of the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootlegger, Drug Offenders, Forest Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders, and Slum Grabbers Act 1982 (Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982) read with G.O.Ms.No.75, Prohibition & Excise Department dated 18.4.2003 passed under Section 3(2) of the said Act.

3. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate (Criminal side) appearing for the respondents and perused the records of the case.

4. Though several contentions have been raised in the grounds, the petitioner has mainly relied upon the variation between the English version and the Tamil version of the grounds of detention so as to fortify his contention that he was confused of such variation in the grounds of detention and therefore it is urged on behalf of the petitioner that he could not make proper and effective representation to the respondents. In this connection, the learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn our attention to ground Nos.4 and 5 of the grounds of detention both in English and Tamil to show that the material variation between the versions caused serious prejudice to the detenu and he was handicapped in presenting effective and proper representation before the concerned authorities. The relevant portion in ground No.4 in the order of detention in English runs as follows:- "From the above materials, I am satisfied that Thiru Ganesan is a " Bootlegger" Distillating and selling ID arrack mixed with poisonous substance in contravention of the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act, 1937." On the contrary, the Tamil version of the said ground is as follows:- "nkny Twg;gl;ltw;wpypUe;J jpU/fnzrd; vd;gtu; xU fs;sr;rhuhaf;fhuuhf. nghija{l;Lk; er;Rg;bghUisf; fye;j fs;sr;rhuhaj;ij 1937k; Mz;L jkpH; ehL kJtpyf;F rl;lj;jpd; gpupt[fSf;F vjpuhd tifapy; tpw;W te;Js;shu;/" Therefore, it is evident that in the Tamil version of the grounds of detention, the allegation that the detenu was distilling ID arrack is not adumbrated and therefore, the learned counsel for the petitioner has argued and in our rightly that such variation goes to the root of the matter.

5. In this connection, the learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on the decision VIJAY KUMAR DHARNA v. UNION OF INDIA (1990 (1) S.C.C. 606) and the unreported decision of a Division Bench of this Court in H.C.P.No.6 of 2000 dated 27.7.2000 in support of such contention. On a careful consideration of the materials on record in the light of the ratio laid down in the said decisions, we are of the considered view that in view of the variations between the English and the Tamil versions of the documents furnished to the detenu, he has been prejudiced and therefore, he is unable to make effective and proper representation of his case before the respondents. It follows necessarily that the order of detention passed by the second respondent has to be quashed on this ground alone.

6. In the result, the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed. The impugned order of detention is quashed and the detenu is directed to be set at liberty forthwith unless he is required in connection with any other case. Index: Yes

Internet: Yes



1. The Secretary to Government

Government of Tamil Nadu

Prohibition and Excise Department

Fort St. George


2. The District Magistrate and

District Collector,

Thiruvannamalai District.

3. The Superintendent

Central Prison, Vellore.

(in duplicate for communication to detenu)

4. The Joint Secretary to Government

Public (Law & Order)

Fort St. George, Chennai-9.

5. The Public Prosecutor

High Court, Madras.


Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites


dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.