ESWARI Vs. SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CHALLENGE is made to the order of the second respondent dated 27.12.2007 made in B.D.F.G.I.S.V.V.No.83/07, whereby the detenu Sarangan was termed as Goonda as defined under the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982.

(2.) AFFIDAVIT in support of the petition is perused. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Additional Public Prosecutor and also the order under challenge is perused.

(3.) SECONDLY, the detenu was supplied with the copies of the order of detention and it was supplied along with the Tamil version also. The Tamil version is not exactly equivalent to the English version. In the detention order ,in page 5 it is found that "further the recourse to normal criminal law will not have the desired effect of preventing him from indulging in such activities which are prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. Based on the materials placed before me, I am satisfied that the said Thiru Sarangan is Goonda and there is a compelling necessity to detain him in order to prevent him from indulging in such further activities in future which are prejudicial to the maintenance of public order under the provisions of section 2(f) of Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982." But, when the translation version was given to him, it did not contain "there is a compelling necessity to detain him in order to prevent him from indulging in such activities in future". Under such circumstances, the detenu who was conversant with Tamil, could not understand properly and hence his right to make effective representation was taken away and hence the detention order is infirm.