Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 1657 (MAD)

Devi v. State of Tamilnadu, rep. by the Secretary

2014-06-24

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.1040/BDFGISSV/2013, dated 19.09.2013. 2. The detenu came to adverse notice in the following cases:- Sl.No. Police Station and Crime No. Sections of Law 1. T12 Poonamallee Police Station Crime No.172/2013 379 I.P.C. 2. T12 Poonamallee Police Station Crime No.1484/2013 454 & 380 IPC The ground case alleged against the detenu is one registered on 04.09.2013 by the Inspector of Police, T-12 Poonamallee Police Station in Crime No.1868/2013 for offences under Sections 341, 294 (b), 336, 392 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 pertaining to the adverse cases and the ground case, 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 and a comparison of the English version and tamil version of the remand orders dated 6th September 2013 in respect of both the adverse cases and the ground case would reveal that there are variations in the time at which the accused was produced before the learned Magistrate in all the three cases. There seems to be a confusion both in the date and time during which the accused was produced before the learned Magistrate in respect of both the adverse cases and the ground case. The remand orders, both the english version and the tamil version, are available at page numbers 41 to 46 of the booklet supplied to the detenu. In all the orders while in the beginning it is stated that “Dated this the 6th day of September 2013” in English and “2013. (“TAMIL”) in Tamil, in the middle of the pages states that “REMAND ORDER DATED : 05.09.2013” in English and (“TAMIL”) 05/09/2013” in Tamil. The order also states that the accused was produced on 05.09.2013 in both the versions. In all the six pages this discrepancy is found. (“TAMIL”) in Tamil, in the middle of the pages states that “REMAND ORDER DATED : 05.09.2013” in English and (“TAMIL”) 05/09/2013” in Tamil. The order also states that the accused was produced on 05.09.2013 in both the versions. In all the six pages this discrepancy is found. Therefore, it is not clear as to whether the accused was produced on 05.09.2013 or 06.09.2013 and what is the date of the remand order ? Is it 05.09.2013 or 06.09.2013. Similarly there are variations in the time also. In respect of Crime No: 172 of 2013, the english version says that the accused was produced by 05.40 p.m. But the tamil version says that the accused was produced by 5.30 p.m. In respect of Crime No: 1868 of 2013, the english version says that the accused was produced by 05.35 p.m. But the tamil version says that the accused was produced by 5.30 p.m. Thus, when the date of the remand order itself is not clear and when there are discrepancies 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, Raji, S/o. Kabeer, made in No: 1040/BDFGISSV/2013 dated 19.09.2013, 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 otherwise required in connection with any other case.