Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 1312 (MAD)

E. Pachiappan v. Secretary to Government

2014-06-14

G.CHOCKALINGAM, V.DHANAPALAN

body2014
Judgment : V. Dhanapalan, J. 1. The petitioner is the friend of the detenu. The detenu 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.1148/BDFGISSV/2013, dated 27.09.2013. 2. The detenu came to adverse notice in the following cases:- Sl.No. Police Station and Crime No. Sections of Law 1. R-4 Soundarapandiyanar Angadi Police Station, Crime No. 258/2013 379 IPC 2. E-3 Teynampet Police Station, Crime No.2145/2013 379 IPC 3. R-1 Mambalam Police Station Crime No.1172/2013 379 IPC 4. R-2 Kodambakkam Police Station Crime No.1626/2013 379 IPC 5. R-1 Mambalam Police Station Crime No.1179/2013 379 IPC The ground case alleged against the detenu is one registered on 31.08.2013 by the Inspector of Police, R-1 Mambalam Police Station in Crime No.1202/2013 for offences under Sections 341, 427, 336, 397 and 506(ii) IPC. 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 remand order dated 01.09.2013, 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 a comparison of the English version of the remand order dated 01.09.2013 annexed in Page No.105 of the booklet with the Tamil version annexed in page No.107 would reveal some defects in translation. The English version of the remand order reads thus: “A1, A2 produced on 01.09.2013 at 6.10 p.m. Grounds of arrest and legal aid explained. No complaints. Remanded till 13.09.2013. ” The Tamil version reads thus: (“TAMIL”) 6. On verification of the English version of the remand order dated 01.09.2013 furnished at page no.105 of the booklet with that of the Tamil version furnished at page no.107, it is seen that there is contradiction in translation. The aspect 'legal aid explained' stated in the English version is omitted to be translated in the Tamil version. On verification of the English version of the remand order dated 01.09.2013 furnished at page no.105 of the booklet with that of the Tamil version furnished at page no.107, it is seen that there is contradiction in translation. The aspect 'legal aid explained' stated in the English version is omitted to be 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 detenu 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 detenu, namely, Saravanan made in BDFGISSV No.1148/2013 dated 27.09.2013, is quashed and the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed. The above named detenu is ordered to be set at liberty forthwith, unless his custody is required in connection with any other case.