Judgment :- (PRAYER: writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issue of a writ of Habeas Corpus to call for the records of the second respondent in his proceedings in Crl.M.P.12/04 dated 09.12.04 and to quash the same and direct the respondents to produce the body of the detenu Karuthapandi before this Court and to set him at liberty now detained in Central Prison, Palayamkottai.) K.P. Sivasubramaniam, J. In this Habeas Corpus Petition, the order of detention, detaining the petitioner's son-in-law as a Goonda under Act 14 of 1982 is called in question. 2. On 31.10.2004 at about 9.30 hours, one Baskaran was driving his motor cycle along with one Jayaraj near Bodureddiapatty. Suddenly, the detenu along with others of a total number of eight persons, came towards Baskaran in four motor cycles. They dashed against Baskaran's Motor cycle on the front side. Jayaraj and Baskaran fell down and managed to get up. They were surrounded by the eight persons. All of them had aruvals and one of them, by placing the aruval on the head of Baskaran, threatened to kill him. The detenu cut Baskaran with aruval on his left side fore-head. All other persons also threatened Baskaran and his companion. In the order of detention, certain overt acts are attributed to most of the said eight individuals causing injuries to the said individuals. After sometime, all the persons returned to their motor cycles and went towards northern direction. Jayaraj and Velusamy came to the place where Baskaran was lying down and found that Baskaran was dead with cut injuries on his upper side of the head, left side of the head and on other parts of the body. His intestine was also protruding out. The public dwelling near the place of occurrence became alarmed and panicky and remained inside their houses out of fear. There was a traffic jam and a feeling of insecurity prevailing in that area. 3. Apart from the ground case, in Crime No.959/2004 under Sections 147, 148, 341, 307 and 302 of I.P.C., the detenu also had an antecedent. That was a criminal case against him in Crime No.427/1996 on the file of the Thiruthangal Police Station, in which he stood convicted. 4. The detaining authority, on being satisfied with the necessity to invoke the provisions of Act 14 of 1982, had passed the impugned detention order. 5. That was a criminal case against him in Crime No.427/1996 on the file of the Thiruthangal Police Station, in which he stood convicted. 4. The detaining authority, on being satisfied with the necessity to invoke the provisions of Act 14 of 1982, had passed the impugned detention order. 5. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner in detail and also the learned Additional Public Prosecutor. 6. The first contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is with reference to the alleged delay in the disposal of the representation. Learned counsel is critical about the delay of consideration of the para-war remarks by the sponsoring authority as well as the disposal of the file by the Minister holding the portfolio. As regards the remarks received from the sponsoring authority, though the remarks were called for on 13.1.2005, remarks were received only on 17.1.2005. It is seen that in between 13.1.2005 and 17.1.2005, there were intervening Pongal holidays and hence, we do not find any delay. Likewise, as between 20.1.2005 when the file was despatched from the Deputy Secretary and on 24.1.2005 the Minister had disposed of the file. It is seen that 21st, 22nd and 23rd happen to be holidays. Therefore, we do not find any unexplained or unreasonable delay in the disposal of the representation. 7. The next ground of criticism is that there was no proper or effective translation of the order of detention. Reference is made to the English version and the Tamil version of the order of detention. In the Tamil version it is stated as follows: However, in the English translation, the detaining authority has stated that there was an apprehension that the individual if let off on bail by the lower court or by the Supreme Court; he will indulge in such further activities. 8. It is true that in the Tamil version, the reference is only to the High Court and not the Supreme Court. We are unable to appreciate there being any substantial prejudice caused to the detenu in the mere wrong mentioning of the Supreme Court instead of the High Court. Any error in the translation must be substantial and positive enough to cause prejudice and an inconsequential error in the translation cannot be fatal to the order of detention. 9. We are unable to appreciate there being any substantial prejudice caused to the detenu in the mere wrong mentioning of the Supreme Court instead of the High Court. Any error in the translation must be substantial and positive enough to cause prejudice and an inconsequential error in the translation cannot be fatal to the order of detention. 9. The further contention is that though in the order of detention the detaining authority has claimed that there was a feeling of insecurity in the minds of the public in that area, it is not stated as to what was the basis on which the detaining authority had come to the said conclusion. We do not find any point in the said contention. The reference to the above observation in sub paragraph (iii) of paragraph 3 is preceded by a detailed statement of the facts relating to the assault caused by the detenu and other persons on the victims and the consequent panic which was created in and around the area. 10. The further contention is that though in the English version the detaining authority has used the expression "imminent possibility" twice, it is seen that in the Tamil version, the expression "imminent possibility" is translated only once. Therefore, according to the learned counsel for the detenu, there was no evidence of any imminent possibility and there was also an error in translation. 11. As stated earlier, as far as translation is concerned, unless the translation conveys totally a different meaning or is sufficient to cause any confusion in the mind of the detenu so as to disable him from providing a proper or effective reply, there will be no justification to merely comment on any small error or omission. In the Tamil version, the word @cldoahf@ has been used once. Merely because the Tamil version does not contain the said expression twice, it does not mean that the translation is erroneous. The essential requirement of imminent possibility has been stated once and that should be sufficient. The authorities are not called upon to perform a word by word literal translation strictly and from grammatical point of view. What is essential is that the substantial spirit of the original text should be found in the translation. The literary talent of the police is not tested. 12. The authorities are not called upon to perform a word by word literal translation strictly and from grammatical point of view. What is essential is that the substantial spirit of the original text should be found in the translation. The literary talent of the police is not tested. 12. The further contention is that the detenu was facing two cases under Section 302, I.P.C. and as such there was no possibility of the detenu coming out on bail. It was therefore erroneous on the part of the detaining authority to assume that there was possibility of the detenu coming out on bail. The above contention is based on the following observations of the detaining authority in sub paragraph (iv) of paragraph 3 of the order of detention: " I am aware that Thiru.Karuthapandi is in remand in Sivakasi Town P.S. Crime No.959/2004 through P.T. Warrant and now in Central Prison, Palayamkottai as remand prisoner. The detenu has not filed any application for grant of bail and considered the question of imminent possibility for the detenu for coming out on bail inspite of the non-filing of bail application. There is possibility of filing a bail petition and there is imminent possibility that the detenu will come out on bail for the offence under Sections 147, 148, 341, 307, 302, IPC by filing bail petition in the court. If he comes out on bail, he will indulge in such further activities which will be prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. Further the recourse to normal criminal law would not have the desired effect of effectively preventing him from indulging in such activities, which will be prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. " 13. From the above remarks in the order of detention, it is sought to be contended that when the detenu was facing charges under Section 302, I.P.C., there was no possibility of the detenu coming out on bail and as such, the reason that there was a possibility of the petitioner coming out on bail was totally erroneous. Reference is made to the judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in Sutty Vs. State Of Tamil Nadu And Another (2004 (1) MWN (Cr.) 175. Reference is made to the judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in Sutty Vs. State Of Tamil Nadu And Another (2004 (1) MWN (Cr.) 175. In that case, the Division Bench was dealing with a case where in the grounds of detention, the detaining authority had stated that the detenu had not filed any bail application and there was imminent possibility of the detenu filing a bail application and coming out on bail in future and that if the detaining authority had taken into consideration that the detenu was in remand in respect of a case under Section 302, I.P.C., then naturally, he might not have found that there was an imminent possibility of the detenu coming out on bail and that such failure on the part of the detaining authority to consider the same would amount to non-application of mind. 14. We are inclined to hold that the said judgment cannot apply to the present case. The above extract in the order of detention will show that the detaining authority was fully aware of the fact that the detenu stood charged under Section 302 and other provisions of the I.P.C. and that by filing a bail petition in the Court, there was a possibility of the detenu coming out on bail. Therefore, the detaining authority was fully aware of the fact of the charge against the petitioner under Section 302, I.P.C. It is not as though he was not aware of it. He was still satisfied that there was an imminent possibility of the detenu coming out on bail by filing a bail application. 15. If the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is to be accepted, then in no case where the detenu faces serious charges and where he does not file a bail application, no order of detention can ever be passed. All that is required is that the detaining authority should be aware of the pendency of a proceeding against the detenu on serious charges. Yet he may be satisfied that notwithstanding the same there was a possibility of the detenu coming out on bail. Then that should be sufficient for the satisfaction of the detaining authority. In the present case, the said requirement is satisfied and we are unable to sustain the objection of the learned counsel for the petitioner. 16. Yet he may be satisfied that notwithstanding the same there was a possibility of the detenu coming out on bail. Then that should be sufficient for the satisfaction of the detaining authority. In the present case, the said requirement is satisfied and we are unable to sustain the objection of the learned counsel for the petitioner. 16. Here is a case where the detenu who was already found guilty of a charge under Section 302 of I.P.C. in P.S.Crime No.427/1996 and had also been convicted for life imprisonment and the offence with regard to the ground case had been committed by him while he was on bail. Such being the case, it is idle to contend that preventive detention was not warranted. Therefore, we do not find any ground to interfere with the order of detention. The Habeas Corpus Petition is dismissed.