Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 1243 (MAD)

Ramani v. Secretary to Government

2014-06-10

G.CHOCKALINGAM, V.DHANAPALAN

body2014
Judgment V. Dhanapalan, J. 1. The petitioner is the mother of detenu. The detenu has been branded as a Goonda under the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982 and detained under order of the 2nd respondent passed in BDFGISSV No. 1236 of 2013 dated 04.10.2013. 2. The detenu came to adverse notice in the following case:– S. No. Police Station and Crime No. Sections of Law 1. H-1 Washermenpet PoliceStation, Crime No. 832 of 2013 Section 120(b), 147, 148, 341, 302 of IPC The ground case alleged against the detenu is one registered on 11.08.2013 by the Inspector of Police, H.1, Washermenpet Police Station in Crime No.834 of 2013 for offences under Sections 147, 148, 341, 384, 336, 427, 307 and 506 (ii) IPC. Aggrieved by the order of detention, the present petition has been filed. 3. Though the 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 04.10.2013 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 documents and comparison of English version of remand order dated 04.10.2013 annexed at the typed set of papers with the Tamil translation would reveal some defects in translation. While the English version informs of the following:- "On information, the Inspector of Police, Law and Order Thiru K. Devaraj rushed to the hospital and examined Thiru.Kumar and recorded his statement in writing and obtained his signature and returned to the Police Station and registered a case in H1, Washermenpet Police Crime No. 834 of 2013 u/s. 147, 148, 341, 384, 336, 427, 307 and 506 (ii) IPC. The case was taken up for investigation." Tamil version informs thus, (TAMIL) 6. The case was taken up for investigation." Tamil version informs thus, (TAMIL) 6. On verification of the documents, 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 sentence “On information, the Inspector of Police, Law and Order Thiru Kumar Devaraj rushed to the hospital and examined Thiru Kumar and recorded his statement in writing and obtained his signature and returned to the Police Station” are not found translated in vernacular language. Apart from this, the sentences found in vernacular language are also different and inaccurate in nature. Thus, when there is a discrepancy between English and Tamil versions, 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, Prakash @ Desappan, S/o Velankanni, aged 25 years, made in BDFGISSV No. 1236 of 2013 dated 04.10.2013, is quashed and the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed. The above named detenu, who is detained at the Central Prison, Vellore, Chennai, is ordered to be set at liberty forthwith, unless his custody is required in connection with any other case. 8. However, it is made clear that this order shall not preclude 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.