I DANIEL INBARAJ Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE brother of the detenu Justin Devadoss alias David is the petitioner in this habeas corpus petition and he has challenged the order of detention passed by the second respondent, made in No. 81 of 2010, dated 20.2.2010 directing the detention of the detenu under Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982 as a 'Goonda'.

(2.) IN order to arrive at a subjective satisfaction that the detenu is a 'Goonda' as defined under Section 2(1 (f) of the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982, the Detaining Authority has referred to fourteen adverse cases, namely, (1) Crime No. 432 of 2009, for alleged offences under Sections 420 and 506(H) IPC; (2) Crime No. 337 of 2009, for alleged offence under Section 420 IPC; (3) Crime No. 443 of 2009, for alleged offence under Section 420 IPC; (4) Crime No. 444 of 2009; (5) Crime No. 446 of 2009; (6) Crime No. 448 of 2009; (7) Crime No. 451 of 2009; (8) Crime No. 452 of 2009; (9) Crime No. 447 of 2009, all for alleged offence under Section 420 IPC; (10) Crime No. 476 of 2009, for alleged offences under Sections 406, 420, 504 and 506 IPC, all on the file of INdira Nagar Police Station, Bangalore; (11) Crime No. 61 of 2008, on the file of Salem C. C.B, for alleged offence under Section 420 IPC; (12) Crime No. 69 of 2009, on the file of Chennai Sub Urban Police, for alleged offences under Sections 406, 420 read with 34 IPC; (13) Crime No. 14 of 2009, on the file of D. C.B. Krishnagiri, for alleged offences under Sections 420 and 506(H) IPC and (14) Crime No. 9 of 2009, on the file of E.O.W-II HQ, for alleged offence under Section 420 IPC, and also relied on two ground cases, namely, (1) E. O.W. Crime No. 9 of 2009, on the file of Economic Offences Wing-II, for an offence under Section 420 IPC and (2) Crime No. 1 of 2010, on the file of Economic Offences Wing-II, for offences under Sections 341, 352, 420, 506(i) IPC and Section 5 of TNPID Act. The said order of detention is challenged by the brother of the detenu in this petition.

(3.) IN support of his contention that the detenu was not supplied with the translated Tamil copies of the documents which were relied on by the detaining authority in order to arrive at a subjective satisfaction that it was necessary to clamp an order of detention describing the detenu as a Goonda, the learned Senior Counsel pointed out the fact that a number of documents, which are in Kannada, have been translated into English and they have not been translated into Tamil and a number of documents which are in English have also not been translated into Tamil and such translated copies have not been furnished to the detenu. It is the further contention of the learned Senior Counsel that the said fact of non-supply of the documents in the language known to the detenu was brought to the notice of the first respondent by way of a representation dated 25.3.2010, but the first respondent mechanically rejected the said representation making an erroneous observation that the detenu was conversant with English language and that the documents have been furnished to him in the said language and hence he was not prejudiced. It is the further submission of the learned Senior Counsel that the said observation in the rejection order shall stand falsified by the fact that the detaining authority itself has chosen to translate a number of documents in English into Tamil and supplied to the detenu which will show that the detaining authority itself was not sure whether the detenu was having a working knowledge in English.