Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 1197 (MAD)

Jagadambal v. State by Secretary to Government

2014-06-09

G.CHOCKALINGAM, V.DHANAPALAN

body2014
Judgment : V. Dhanapalan, J. 1. The petitioner is the mother of the detenue. The detenue has been branded as a "Goonda" under the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982 and detained under the order of the 2nd respondent passed in Memo No.1326/BDFGISSV/2013, dated 13.10.2013. 2. The detenue came to adverse notice in the following cases:- Sl.No. Police Station and Crime No. Sections of Law 1 Anti Vice Squad-I Crime No.95/2011 3(2)a, 4(1), 5(1)a of ITP Act. 2 J1 Saidapet Police Station Crime No.915/2013 3(1), 4(1) & 5(1) of ITP Act 3 Chennai Anti Vice Squad-I Crime No.62/2013 3(2)a, 4(1), 5(1)a of ITP Act The ground case alleged against the detenu is one registered on 10.10.2013 by the Inspector of Police, Anti Vice Squad-II, Police Station in Crime No.62/2013 for offences under Sections 3(2)a, 4(1), 5(1)a and 6(1) of ITP Act. 3. Though the learned counsel for the petitioner has raised several other grounds to assail the order of detention, he mainly focused his arguments on the ground that there is variation in translation of the detention order dated 11.10.2013 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Alandur, Chennai, annexed at page 71 of the booklet, which has deprived the detenue 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. On a careful scrutiny of the booklet, particularly at page 71, which pertains to the English version of the detention order dated 11.10.2013 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Alandur, Chennai, it is stated that the victim will be produced after Medical examination and shall be otherwise ordered in meantime. Whereas, in the Tamil version of the said order found at page 72, the aspect regarding 'production of the victim after Medical examination' is not translated. The English version of the remand order reads thus: “Whereas, Sabiya @ Sabiya Banu, F/A 23, W/o.Dosiph, hereafter called the victim concerned in the above cases u/s 3 (2)(a), 4(1), 5(1)(a), 6(1) of ITP Act and it appears to be necessary to detain the said victim girl. You are hereby required to receive the said victim girl in to your custody and their safety to keep here till 25 October 2013. You are hereby required to receive the said victim girl in to your custody and their safety to keep here till 25 October 2013. She will be produced after completion of Medical examination, shall be otherwise ordered in meantime.” The Tamil version reads thus: (TAMIL) 6. On a comparison of the English and Tamil version of the detention order passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Alandur, Chennai, found in pages 71 and 72 of the booklet, it is seen that the aspect 'production of the victim after Medical examination' is not translated in the Tamil version. Thus, when there is discrepancy between English and Tamil versions, the opportunity of making effective representation upon knowledge of the factual situation stands denied to the detenue and the same, which amounts to 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 detenue, namely, Jansi @ Poornima made in BDFGISSV No.1326/2013 dated 13.10.2013, is quashed and the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed. The above named detenue is ordered to be set at liberty forthwith, unless her custody is required in connection with any other case. 8. However, it is made clear that this order shall not preclude the authorities concerned to effectively contest the matter before the Regular Court, uninfluenced by the above order. It is also made clear that this order shall not confer any right or advantage whatsoever to the detenu to claim anything before the Regular Court.