Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 1525 (MAD)

Kalyani v. Secretary to the Government, Chennai

2014-06-18

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.890/BDFGISSV/2013, dated 03.09.2013. 2. The detenu came to adverse notice in the following cases:- Sl.No. Police Station and Crime No. Sections of Law 1 P-4 Basin Bridge Police Station Crime No.03/2013 302 IPC @ 120 (b), 341, 302 r/w 34 IPC 2 P-1 Pulianthope Police Station Crime No.1425/2013 294(b), 385, 506(ii) IPC The ground case alleged against the detenu is one registered on 22.08.2013 by the Inspector of Police, P-4 Basin Bridge Police Station in Crime No.638/2013 for offences under Sections 341, 294(b), 392 r/w 397, 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 22.08.2013 annexed in pages 54 and 55 of the booklet, 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 22.08.2013 annexed in Page No.54 of the booklet with the Tamil version annexed in page 55 would reveal some defects in translation. The English version of the remand order reads thus: “Accused produced. No complaints. Case explained. Remanded till 05.09.2013.” The Tamil version reads thus: “TAMIL” 6. On verification of the English and Tamil version of the remand order dated 22.08.2013 found at pages 54 and 55 of the booklet, it is seen that there is contradiction in translation. Though in the English version of the remand order, the aspect 'No complaints. Case explained' is mentioned, it 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. 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, Venkatesan @ Venkayam made in BDFGISSV No.890/2013 dated 03.09.2013, 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.