Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 1374 (MAD)

Padmavathi v. Secretary to the 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.1384/BDFGISSV/2013, dated 20.10.2013. 2. The detenu came to adverse notice in the following cases:- Sl.No. Police Station and Crime No. Sections of Law 1. H-5, New Washermanpet Police Station, Crime No.1323/2012 452, 324, 506(ii) IPC 2. H-5, New Washermanpet Police Station, Crime No.322/2013 302 IPC 3. H-8, Thiruvottiyur Police Station, Crime No.1257/2013 341, 294(b), 397, 506 (ii) IPC 4. H-5, New Washermanpet Police Station, Crime No.1196/2013 341, 384, 506(ii) IPC The ground case alleged against the detenu is one registered on 06.10.2013 by the Inspector of Police, Law & Order, H-8, Thiruvottiyur Police Station in Crime No.1295/2013 for offences under Sections 341, 336, 427, 324, 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 the bail order dated 13.06.2013 in Crl.M.P.No.1171/2013 relied on by the detaining authority, 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 92 and 93, which pertain to the bail order dated 13.06.2013 granted by the Principal Sessions Judge at Thiruvallur in Crl.M.P.No.1171/2013, it is seen that the said Crl.M.P. Number is not mentioned in the Tamil version. 6. For better appreciation of the case, relevant portion of the detention order is extracted hereunder: “4. ... In a similar case registered at M-5, Ennore Police Station Cr.No.1017/2013 u/s.294(b), 336, 427, 392 r/w. 397, 506(ii) IPC, bail was granted to the accused Santosh Kumar by the Hon'ble Sessions Court, Chennai in Crl.M.P.No.1171/2013 .... ” 7. While translating the said bail order to Tamil, the Case number, i.e. Crl.M.P.No.1171/2013, which is the vital aspect of an order, is omitted to be mentioned. ” 7. While translating the said bail order to Tamil, the Case number, i.e. Crl.M.P.No.1171/2013, which is the vital aspect of an order, is omitted to be mentioned. 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. 8. For the aforesaid reason, the impugned detention order passed by the 2nd respondent, detaining the detenu, namely, Dhananjayan made in BDFGISSV No.1384/2013 dated 20.10.2013, 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. 9. 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.