Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 1567 (MAD)

S. Kavitha v. State of Tamil Nadu

2014-06-18

G.CHOCKALINGAM, V.DHANAPALAN

body2014
Judgment V. Dhanapalan, J. 1. The petitioner is the wife 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. 1448/BDFGISSV of 2013, dated 27.10.2013. 2. The detenu came to adverse notice in the following cases:– S. No. Police Station and Crime No. Sections of Law 1. T-15, SRMC Police Station Crime No. 139 of 2011 364, 302, 201 IPC 2. T-12, Poonamallee Police Station Crime No. 1983 of 2013 341, 294(b), 392, 506(ii) IPC 3. T-5, Thiruverkadu Police Station, Crime No. 1613 of 2013 294(b), 384, 506(ii) IPC The ground case alleged against the detenu is one registered on 07.10.2013 by the Inspector of Police, T-12 Poonamallee Police Station in Crime No. 2053 of 2013 for offences under Sections 341, 294(b), 392, 397, 336 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 08.10.2013, 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 08.10.2013 annexed in Page No. 34 of the booklet with the Tamil version annexed in page 36 would reveal some defects in translation. The English version of the remand order reads thus:- "Marginally noted accused produced on 08.10.2013 by 05.10 p.m. Grounds of arrest informed. Legal aid explained. Right to consult an advocate also explained. Arrest informed. No complaints against police. No apparent injuries found on the accused. I have perused the materials and the materials discloses cognizable offences. Hence, accused remanded to judicial custody till 22.10.2013." The Tamil version reads thus:- TAMIL 6. On verification of the English and Tamil version of the remand order dated 08.10.2013 found at pages 34 and 36 of the booklet, it is seen that there is contradiction in translation. I have perused the materials and the materials discloses cognizable offences. Hence, accused remanded to judicial custody till 22.10.2013." The Tamil version reads thus:- TAMIL 6. On verification of the English and Tamil version of the remand order dated 08.10.2013 found at pages 34 and 36 of the booklet, it is seen that there is contradiction in translation. Though in the Tamil version of the remand order, it is stated that the detenu is not a juvenile, to put it exactly, (Tamil), it is omitted to be translated in the English 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 Shankar made in BDFGISSV No. 1448 of 2013 dated 27.10.2013, 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.