Banu Beevi vs State

R. Subbiah, J.—Challenging the order of detention clamped on the detenu by name A. Bazeer @ Abdul Bazaeer by the 3rd Respondent in C.P.O./T.C./I.S./B.M./D.O. No. 04/2010, dated 22.09.2010, the present habeas corpus petition is filed by the wife of the detenu.

The learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner submitted that the Quality Certificate furnished to the detenu in the Booklet is not legible and more over, the Tamil version of the said Quality Report was also not furnished to the detenu and hence the detenu was not in a position to submit his explanation effectively. Further, the counsel for the Petitioner submitted that though the representation was sent to the 2nd Respondent as early as on 22.09.2010, the same came to be rejected only on 19.11.2010 and hence there was a huge delay in considering the representation of the detenu and this delay has caused prejudice to the detenu. Hence, according to the learned Counsel, on the above grounds the detention order is liable to be quashed.

We have heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for Respondents 1 and 3 and the learned Central Government Standing Counsel appearing for Respondent No. 2.

Keeping in mind the submissions made by the counsel on either side, we have perused the Quality Report found in Page No. 10 of the Booklet and found that the said Quality Report is not legible and readable. Further, as contended by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner, the Tamil version of the said Quality Certificate is not found placed in the booklet. On a perusal of the grounds of detention annexed to the order of detention, it is found that the detaining authority has relied upon this document for clamping the order of detention. In such circumstances, we are of the opinion that non-furnishing of legible copy of the quality certificate as well as the translated Tamil version of the same would definitely cause great prejudice to the right of the detenu in submitting his representation. In this regard, useful reference could be made to the judgment of this Court in N. Rani v. State of Tamil Nadu, reported in (2008) 2 MLJ (Crl) 50, wherein this Court has held as follows:

Communicate is a strong word. It requires that sufficient knowledge of the basic facts consisting the grounds should be imparted effectively and fully to the detenu in writing in a language which he understands, so as to enable the detenu to make a purposeful and effective representation. Where the ground are not properly translated, it would tantamount to not serving the ground to the detenu and would thus vitiate the detention ex facie.

Coming to the next ground of delay in considering the representation of the detenu by the 2nd Respondent, it is seen from the counter affidavit filed by the 2nd Respondent that the representation of the detenu, made as early as on 22.09.2010, and received by the 2nd Respondent on 12.10.2010, has been considered and rejected by the 2nd Respondent only on 19.11.2010. But, the long duration of time (more than a month) taken by the 2nd Respondent in considering and rejecting the representation has not been properly explained and, hence, on this ground of delay also, we are of the opinion that the order of detention is liable to be quashed.

Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, the habeas corpus petition is allowed and the impugned order of detention in C.P.O./T.C./I.S./B.M./D.O. No. 04/2010, dated 22.09.2010, passed by the 3rd Respondent is quashed. The detenu A. Bazeer @ Abdul Bazeer, S/o. Abdul Jabbar, is directed to be set at liberty forthwith, unless his presence is required in connection with any other case.