350 in two cases.
659 of 1998, before the Division Bench of the High Court of Madras having been unsuccessful, she is before us by special leave against the order of the High Court dated October 5, 1998, dismissing the said petition.
250 in two cases and Rs.
Hence number furnishing of the companyy of the remand order in Tamil will number cause any prejudice to the detenue.
He referred to four cases filed under Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act, 1937 in which she was found guilty and was fined, Rs.
The reply given by the person has been recorded in the remand order.
1999 1 SCR 104 The Judgments of the Court were delivered by QUADRI, J. Leave is granted.
In Prakash Chandra Mehta v. Commissioner and Secretary, Govern ment of Kerala and Others, 1985 Supp.
SCC 144, while Hindi translation of the grounds of detention was served on the detenue there were six annexures which were supplied to the detenue and were in Malayalam.
It may be numbericed that the grounds recite that the detenue had earlier on four different occasions been companyvicted under Sections 4 l i and 4 l b of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act, 1937.
The Court rejected other grounds of attack to the detention which was under the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974.
The reply has been incorporated in the remand order itself as numbercomplaint of ill treatment.
She has number made any grievance even before the honourable advisory Board.
The Learned Trial Magistrate has put the question to the detenue in Tamil whether the person was ill treated.
The detenue was ordered to be detained by the second respondent on the ground that she was a bootlegger within the meaning of the said Act and was indulging in activities prejudicial to the maintenance of public health and public order.
B.D.F.G.I.S. No.
In the representation dated 18.5.98 given before the Advisory Board she has number stated that she did number understand the companytents of the documents namely the remand order dated 5.4.98.
As rightly pointed out by the detaining authority that number only that the remand order which finds mention in the grounds which were given to the detenue in Tamil, the Magistrate also did tell the detenue of the order of remanding her.
The detenue did number choose to file any rejoinder to the companynter affidavit filed by the detaining authority though opportunity was granted to her.
Copies of the miscellaneous petitions were supplied to the detenue but the companyy of the civil revision petition in which the miscellaneous petitions were filed, was number furnished.
I am tempted to quote the following observations in the judgment see paras 82 and 83 Preventive detention unlike punitive detention which is to punish for the wrong done, is to protect the society by preventing wrong being done.
The detenue did number know the Malayalam language.
The detaining authority had companye to the companyclusion that the detenue knew both Hindi and English.
Lakshmi, who was detained by order No.
38/98 dated 12th April, 1980, passed by the second respondent, under Section 3 of the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Forest Offenders, Goondas Immoral Traffic Offenders and Slum Grabbers Act, 1982 for short, Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982 .
Her challenge to the said order in a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution HCP No.
The appellant is the mother of the detenue, Smt.
