Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 1346 (MAD)

Thangam v. Secretary to Government

2014-06-14

G.CHOCKALINGAM, V.DHANAPALAN

body2014
Judgment : V. Dhanapalan, J. 1. The petitioner is the mother 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.1066/BDFGISSV/2013, dated 20.09.2013. 2. The detenu came to adverse notice in the following case :- Sl.No. Police Station and Crime No. Sections of Law 1. H.1 Washermanpet Police Station, Crime No.832/2013 147, 148, 120(b), 341, 302 IPC The ground case alleged against the detenu is one registered by the Inspector of Police, Law and Order, H1 Washermanpet Police Station in Crime No.834/2013 for offences under Sections 147, 148, 341, 384, 336, 427, 307 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 paragraph 3 of the detention order, 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 comparison of the English and Tamil version of the detention order, it is seen that there is variation in translation in paragraph 3. Relevant portion in the English version would read thus : “3. ....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 Washermanpet Police Crime No.834/2013 u/s 147, 148, 341, 384, 336, 427, 307 and 506(ii) IPC. The case was taken up for investigation.” The Tamil version of the said portion reads thus: "3. ....(“Language”) 6. In the English version of the detention order, it is stated that “the Inspector of Police, Law and Order Thiru.K.Devaraj rushed to the hospital and examined Thiru.Kumar'', whereas in the Tamil version, the said aspect is omitted. 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. 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, Prakash @ Appala Prakash made in BDFGISSV No.1066/2013 dated 20.09.2013, 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. 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.