Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 1016 (MAD)

Thangathurichi v. State

2014-04-29

G.CHOCKALINGAM, V.DHANAPALAN

body2014
ORDER : The petitioner is the wife of detenu. The detenu has been branded as a 'Bootlegger' under the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982 and detained under order of the 2nd respondent passed in C.O.C. No. 58 of 2013 dated 07.10.2013. 2. The detenu came to adverse notice in the following cases:- (Tabullar Matter Is Omitted.....Ed) The ground case alleged against the detenu is one registered on 12.09.2013 by the Inspector of Police, Sembanarkoil Police Station in Crime No.437 of 2013 for offences under Sections 4(1)(aaa) r/w 4(1-A) of TNP Act, 1937 (Transport). Aggrieved by the order of detention, the present petition has been filed. 3. Though learned counsel for the petitioner has raised several other grounds to assail the order of detention, he has mainly focused his argument on the ground that there is a variation in translation of the remand order dated 12.09.2013 annexed in the booklet, which has deprived the detenu in making effective representation to the authorities concerned and therefore, on this sole ground, the detention order is liable to be quashed. 4. We have heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor on the above submission. 5. A careful scrutiny of the booklet and comparison of English version of remand order dated 12.09.2013 annexed at page No.52 of the booklet with the Tamil translation transcribed at the bottom of the same page would reveal some defects in translation. While the English version informs of the following: 'Accd. Produced at 6.00 p.m. Legal assistance, grounds of arrest explained. No comp. against Police. Hence remanded to Judicial Custody till 26.09.2013.' the Tamil version informs thus, (Vernacular matter omitted..........Ed.) 6. On verification of the booklet at page No.52, it comes to light that there is a contradiction in translation between English and Tamil versions in respect of the same document, viz., remand order, wherein the words 'Legal Assistance' are not found translated in vernacular language. Thus, when there is a discrepancy between English and Tamil version, the opportunity of detenu making effective representation upon knowledge of the factual situation stands denied and the same, which amounts to an infringement of right ensured under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India, would vitiate the order of detention. 7. Thus, when there is a discrepancy between English and Tamil version, the opportunity of detenu making effective representation upon knowledge of the factual situation stands denied and the same, which amounts to an infringement of right ensured under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India, would vitiate the order of detention. 7. For the aforesaid reason, the impugned detention order passed by the 2nd respondent, detaining the detenu, namely, Madasamy, S/o. Raja Nadar, made in C.O.C.No.58 of 2013 dated 07.10.2013, is quashed and the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed. The above named detenu, who is detained at the Central Prison, Tiruchirappalli, is ordered to be set at liberty forthwith, unless his custody is required in connection with any other case. Order accordingly.