Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 1388 (MAD)

Sapthagiri v. State of Tamil Nadu

2014-06-14

G.CHOCKALINGAM, V.DHANAPALAN

body2014
Judgment V. Dhanapalan, J. 1. The petitioner is the detenu herein. He 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. 1386/BDFGISSV of 2013, dated 20.10.2013. 2. The detenu came to adverse notice in the following cases:– S. No. Police Station and Crime No. Sections of Law 1. V-3 JJ Nagar Police Station Crime No. 146 of 2008 174 Cr. P.C. @ 498 (A), 306 IPC 2. F-5 Choolaimedu Police Station Crime No. 2645 of 2011 457 and 380 IPC 3. R-1 Mambalam Police Station Crime No. 770 of 2013 379 IPC 4. R-1 Mamabalam Police Station Crime No. 1304 of 2013 379 IPC 5. T-2 Ambattur Estate Police Station, Crime No. 792 of 2013 379 IPC 6. F-5 Choolaimedu Police Station Crime No. 523 of 2013 454 and 380 IPC 7. F-5 Choolaimedu Police Station Crime No. 1301 of 2013 380 and 511 IPC The ground case alleged against the detenu is one registered on 10.10.2013 by the Inspector of Police, Crime, F-5 Choolaimedu Police Station in Crime No. 1305 of 2013 for offences under Sections 341, 294(b), 336, 392, 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 10.10.2013, 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 10.10.2013 annexed in Page No. 114 of the booklet with the Tamil version annexed in page No. 115 would reveal some defects in translation. The English version of the remand order reads thus: “Accused produced at 09.00 P.M. Grounds of arrest and legal aid explained. No complaints. Remanded till 24.10.2013.” The Tamil version reads thus: (TAMIL) 6. On verification of the English version of the remand order dated 10.10.2013 furnished at page no.114 of the booklet with that of the Tamil version furnished at page no.115, it is seen that there is contradiction in translation. No complaints. Remanded till 24.10.2013.” The Tamil version reads thus: (TAMIL) 6. On verification of the English version of the remand order dated 10.10.2013 furnished at page no.114 of the booklet with that of the Tamil version furnished at page no.115, 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, Sapthagiri made in BDFGISSV No. 1386 of 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.