Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 1704 (MAD)

Selvam v. Commissioner of Police, Chennai

2014-06-25

G.CHOCKALINGAM, V.DHANAPALAN

body2014
Judgment V. Dhanapalan, J. 1. The petitioner is the father 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 first respondent passed in Memo No. 1180/BDFGISSV of 2013, dated 30.09.2013. 2. The detenu came to adverse notice in the following cases:– S. No. Police Station and Crime No. Sections of Law 1. T-13 Kundrathur Police Station Crime No. 217 of 2011 109 r/w 302 & 201 IPC 2. T-13 Kundrathur Police Station Crime No. 1277 of 2013 380 IPC 3. T-13 Kundrathur Police Station Crime No. 1437 of 2013 392, 506(ii) IPC The ground case alleged against the detenu is one registered on 17.09.2013 by the Inspector of Police, T-13 Kundrathur Police Station in Crime No. 1514 of 2013 for offences under Sections 341, 294(b), 427, 336, 397 and 506 (ii) IPC. Aggrieved by the order of detention, the present petition has been filed. 3. Though the learned counsel for the petitioner raised several grounds to assail the impugned order of detention, he mainly focused his argument on the ground that there is improper translation of the remand order. The learned counsel would submit that the offences in the similar case relied on by the detaining authority are not similar to the offences in the second and third adverse cases. For the above reasons, the detention order is liable to be quashed. 4. We have heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor on the above point, who submits that the detenu is involved in serious offences and technical lapses cannot be the ground to quash the detention order. 5. For appreciating the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the relevant averments in para 4 of the grounds of detention are extracted below:- "4. It is pertinent to note that in a similar case registered at P-3 Vyasarpadi Police Station Crime No. 1062 of 2011 registered under Sections 457, 380 IPC bail was granted in Crl. M.P. Nos. 1259 and 1364 of 2012 by the Court of V Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Egmore, Chennai. It is pertinent to note that in a similar case registered at T-1 Ambattur P.S. Cr. No. 464 of 2012 u/s. 341, 294(b), 336, 427, 392, 397 and 506(ii) IPC bail was granted by the Principal Sessions Judge at Thiruvallur, in Crl. M.P. No. 712 of 2012. It is pertinent to note that in a similar case registered at T-1 Ambattur P.S. Cr. No. 464 of 2012 u/s. 341, 294(b), 336, 427, 392, 397 and 506(ii) IPC bail was granted by the Principal Sessions Judge at Thiruvallur, in Crl. M.P. No. 712 of 2012. Hence, I infer that there is real possibility of his coming out on bail in T-13 Kundrathur Police Station Crime Nos. 1277 of 2013, 1437 of 2013 and 1514 of 2013 by filing bail application before the appropriate court since in similarly placed cases bails are granted by courts after a lapse of time." 6. From a perusal of the detention order, it is seen that the detaining authority has taken into consideration the similar case registered in T-1 Ambattur Police Station Crime No. 464 of 2012 for the offences under Sections 341, 294(b), 336, 427, 392, 397 and 506(ii) IPC, wherein, bail was granted in Crl. M.P. No. 712 of 2012 by the Principal Sessions Judge, Thiruvallur and therefore, there is a real possibility of the detenu coming out on bail and indulge in such activities prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. The similar case relied on by the authority was registered for the offences under Sections 341, 294(b), 336, 427, 392, 397 and 506 (ii) IPC, whereas the offences involved in the second and third adverse cases are under Sections 380 IPC and 302, 506(ii) IPC respectively. Therefore, there is non-application of mind on the part of the detaining authority in not considering the similar case for arriving at subjective satisfaction. 7. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, there is improper translation of the remand order as the words no complaint against police have been translated as the word police has been omitted to be translated in the vernacular version. By perusal of the booklet, it is seen that in the English version of the remand order dated 18.09.2013 found at Page No. 80, it has been stated as Accused produced before me 18.09.2013 at 5.00 P.M. No complaint against police. Grounds of arrest explained. Remanded judicial custody 01.10.2013, whereas in the Vernacular version at Page No. 81. When there is a variation in translation, opportunity of clear understanding and making effective representation on such understanding is lost and the detenu is deprived thereof. Grounds of arrest explained. Remanded judicial custody 01.10.2013, whereas in the Vernacular version at Page No. 81. When there is a variation in translation, opportunity of clear understanding and making effective representation on such understanding is lost and the detenu is deprived thereof. The defective translation amounts to an infringement of right ensured under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India. 8. On the above grounds, the detention order is liable to be set aside. Accordingly, the impugned detention order passed by the first respondent in Memo No. 1180/BDFGISSV of 2013 dated 30.09.2013 is hereby quashed and the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed. The detenu, namely Deen @ Deenain this case is set at liberty forthwith, unless his custody is required in connection with any other case. 9. However, in view of serious offences involved in this matter, it is open to the prosecution 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.