Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 4011 (MAD)

Mayee v. Secretary to Government

2013-11-26

R.KARUPPIAH, V.DHANAPALAN

body2013
ORDER 1. The petitioner is the detenu. The detenu has been branded as a "Sand Offender" as contemplated under Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982 and detained under the order of the second respondent passed in Detention No. 17/2013, dated 14-7-2013. The ground case alleged against the detenu is one registered by the Dindigul Taluk PS Cr. No. 336/2013 under Sections 379, IPC r/w 25(i), Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 and 3(1) of TNPPDL Act. Aggrieved by the order of detention, the present petition has been filed. 2. Amidst several grounds raised by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, he has mainly focused his argument on a point that there is a defect in the translation of remand order furnished to the detenu at booklet page Nos. 92 and 93. Therefore, the impugned order with a defective translation would deprive the detenu to redress his grievance in making effective representation with proper understanding of the translation of the order and therefore, the impugned order is vitiated in law. 3. We have heard Mr. C. Mayilvahana Rajendran, learned Additional Public Prosecutor on the above point and perused the records. 4. To the point raised by the learned counsel, as there is a defect in the translation, we verified with the records. At page No. 92 of the booklet, the remand order passed by the Judicial Magistrate No. 1, Dindigul on 4-7-2013 read as follows: 4. Marginally noted A1, A2 produced. Charge-sheet not filed. Remand Extended till 18-7-2013. 5. However, at page No. 93, the translated version reads as follows: (Vernacular matter omitted...... Ed.) 6. On verification of the above orders would clearly indicate that there is a omission of translation of the portion 'charge-sheet not filed' and the same was conspicuously omitted in the Tamil translation of the remand order, which would deprive the detenu from making effective representation to redress his grievance which right has been guaranteed to him under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, the impugned detention order is vitiated in law. Hence, the impugned detention order passed by the second respondent, detaining the detenu, namely, Mayee alias Katta Mayee son of Chinnasamy, vide Detention Order No. 17/2013, dated 14-7-2013, is quashed and the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed. Accordingly, the impugned detention order is vitiated in law. Hence, the impugned detention order passed by the second respondent, detaining the detenu, namely, Mayee alias Katta Mayee son of Chinnasamy, vide Detention Order No. 17/2013, dated 14-7-2013, is quashed and the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed. The above named detenu, who is detained in Central Prison, Madurai, is ordered to be set at liberty forthwith, unless his custody is required in connection with any other case. However, it is made clear that the present order shall not give any advantage to the detenu in any of the regular proceedings. It is open to the respondents to contest the matter effectively in a regular court and defend the prosecution. Petition allowed.