KANNAN ALIAS GANESAN Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) REFERRING to four adverse cases in Cr.No.236 of 2009 on the file of T-15, SRMC police station registered for offences punishable under Sections 457 and 380 IPC relating to an occurrence that allegedly took place between 5.5.2009 and 11.5.2009, Cr.No.514 of 2009 on the file of S-1, St. Thomas Mount police station registered for offences punishable under Sections 457 and 380 IPC relating to an occurrence that allegedly took place on 23.5.2009, Cr.No.256 of 2009 on the file of S-4, Nandambakkam police station registered for offences punishable under Section 380 IPC relating to an occurrence that allegedly took place on 14.5.2009 and Cr.No.364 of 2009 on the file of K-8, Arumbakkam police station registered for offences punishable under Sections 457 and 380 IPC relating to an occurrence that allegedly took place on 28.5.2009 and the ground case in Cr.No.542 of 2009 on the file of the K-8, Arumbakkam police station for offences punishable under Sections 341, 336, 397 and 506 (ii) IPC, the second respondent herein has passed an order of detention in Memo No.239/BDFGISSV/2009 dated 19.8.2009 holding the detenu Kannan @ Ganesan to be a "goonda" under Section 2(f) of the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1992 and expressing his satisfaction that the detenu's presence at large will be detrimental to the maintenance of public order and peace.

(2.) THE detenu himself has come forward with this habeas corpus petition challenging the order of detention and praying for an order setting aside the order of detention and directing his release.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the petitioner drew our attention to page No.87 of the paper book, wherein a copy of the receipt for the telegram is available. THE telegram was booked at 15.0 hrs (3.10 p.m) on 5.8.2009. THE contents of the telegram are found at page No.87(a). In the very same page, the Tamil translation of the telegram is also available. In the English version, besides crime number, the penal provisions are also found, whereas in the Tamil version, the penal provisions are absent. THE learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the same is an incorrect translation causing prejudice to the detenu. We don"t find any force in the above said argument as both the English and Tamil versions are found at the very same page and the necessary particulars regarding the arrest of detenu and remand in the particular crime Number has been furnished.