Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 1328 (MAD)

Baisha v. Inspector of Police

2014-06-14

G.CHOCKALINGAM, V.DHANAPALAN

body2014
Judgment : V. Dhanapalan, J. 1. The petitioner is the wife 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.799/BDFGISSV/2013, dated 24.08.2013. 2. The detenu came to adverse notice in the following cases:- Sl.No. Police Station and Crime No. Sections of Law 1. J.7 Velachery Police Station Crime No.1556/2011 380 IPC 2. J.7 Velachery Police Station Crime No.1811/2011 379 IPC 3. J.7 Velachery Police Station Crime No.2917/2011 379 IPC 4. E.3 Teynampet Police Station Crime No.650/2013 379 IPC 5. H.5 New Washermanpet Police Station, Crime No.795/2013 380 and 511 IPC 6. H.5 New Washermanpet Police Station, Crime No.908/2013 379 IPC The ground case alleged against the detenu is one registered on 08.08.2013 by the Inspector of Police, H.5 New Washermanpet Police Station in Crime No.915/2013 for offences under Sections 341, 336, 294(b), 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 08.08.2013, 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. On a careful scrutiny of the booklet at pages 127 and 128, which pertain to the English and Tamil version of the Remand Order dated 08.08.2013, it is seen that there is contradiction in translation. For better appreciation of the case, relevant portion of the said Remand Order in English and Tamil, are extracted hereunder: “Accused produced at 7.15 p.m. No complaints of ill-treatment by police. Offence explained. Remanded to custody till 22.08.2013. .... ” (“TAMIL”) 6. On a comparison of the English version of the said Remand Order with the Tamil version, it is seen that the aspect'Offence explained' stated in the English version, is omitted to be translated in the Tamil version. Offence explained. Remanded to custody till 22.08.2013. .... ” (“TAMIL”) 6. On a comparison of the English version of the said Remand Order with the Tamil version, it is seen that the aspect'Offence 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, Prthiviraja made in BDFGISSV No.799/2013 dated 24.08.2013, 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.