Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 1421 (MAD)

M. Kalaiselvi v. Commissioner of Police

2014-06-16

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 1st respondent passed in Memo No.736/BDFGISSV/2013, dated 19.08.2013. 2. The detenu came to adverse notice in the following cases:- Sl.No. Police Station and Crime No. Sections of Law 1. T-2 Ambattur Estate Police Station Crime No.77/2012 294(b), 324, 307 IPC 2. T-2 Ambattur Estate Police Station Crime No.345/2012 294(b), 323, 506(ii) IPC 3. T-2 Ambattur Estate Police Station Crime No.954/2012 379 IPC 4. T-2 Ambattur Estate Police Station Crime No.106/2013 341, 294(b), 336, 392, 397 and 506(ii) IPC 5. T-3 Korattur Police Station Crime No.1247/2013 341, 294(b), 336, 427, 397 and 506(ii) IPC The ground case alleged against the detenu is one registered on 25.07.2013 by the Inspector of Police, T-2 Ambathur Estate Police Station in Crime No.943/2013 for offences under Sections 341, 294(b), 336, 427, 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 26.07.2013, 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 26.07.2013 annexed in Page No.112 of the booklet with the Tamil version annexed in page 113 would reveal some defects in translation. The English version of the remand order reads thus: “5.50 pm Accused produced. No complaints against the police. Grounds for arrest known to him. Arrest intimated to his father. Accused remanded to judicial custody till 07.08.2013. ” The Tamil version reads thus: “TAMIL” 6. On verification of the English and Tamil version of the remand order dated 26.07.2013 found at pages 112 and 113 of the booklet, it is seen that there is contradiction in translation. Though in the English version of the remand order, the aspect 'Arrest intimated to his father' is stated, the same is omitted to be translated in the Tamil version. Though in the English version of the remand order, the aspect 'Arrest intimated to his father' is stated, the same 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 1strespondent, detaining the detenu, namely, Sathish made in BDFGISSV No.736/2013 dated 19.08.2013, 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.