Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 1817 (MAD)

Murali @ Baba Murali v. Secretary to Government

2014-07-01

G.CHOCKALINGAM, V.DHANAPALAN

body2014
Judgment V. Dhanapalan, J. 1. The detenu himself is the petitioner. The detenu has been branded as a "Goonda" under the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982 and detained under the order of the 2ndrespondent passed in BDFGISSV No.390/2013, dated 10.07.2013. 2. The detenu came to adverse notice in the following cases: S.No. Police Station and Crime No. Sections of Law 1 D3 Ice House Police Station Crime No.1792/2010 379 IPC 2 B1 North Beach Police Station Crime No. 791/2011 457 and 380 IPC 3 C5 Kothawalchavadi Police Station Crime No.1116/2011 454 and 380 IPC 4 E2 Royapettah Police Station Crime No.447/2013 457 and 380 IPC The ground case alleged against the detenu is one registered on 18.05.2013 by the Inspector of Police, E-2 Royapettah Police Station in Crime No.462/2013 for offences under Sections 341, 336, 427, 397 and 506(ii) IPC. Aggrieved against the same, 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 arguments on the ground that there is variation between the English version and the Tamil version of the grounds of detention in respect of narration of events in para 3 of the grounds of detention and the said variation would create confusion in the mind of the detenu, thereby the detenu is prevented from making effective representation for redressal of his grievance. For this reason, the impugned detention order is liable to be quashed. 4. We have heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor on the above submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the records. 5. For appreciating the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the relevant averments in para 3 of the English version of the grounds of detention are extracted hereunder: "3............The normalcy in that area was totally dislocated and taking advantage of the panic situation. The Inspector of Police visited the spot and prepared observation mahazar. threatened everyone at the spot at the point of knife and tried to escape from the spot....." whereas, para 3 of the vernacular version of the grounds of detention reads as under: "TAMIL" 6. From a reading of the above, it is crystal clear that there is variation in respect of narration of events between the English Version and the Vernacular version of the grounds of detention. From a reading of the above, it is crystal clear that there is variation in respect of narration of events between the English Version and the Vernacular version of the grounds of detention. Therefore, the defective translation would vitiate the order of detention. On this sole ground, the order of detention is liable to be quashed. 7. In the result, this habeas corpus petition is allowed and the impugned detention order made in No.390/2013 dated 10.07.2013, is set aside. The detenu – Murali @ Bab a Murali, S/o.Deenadayalan, is directed to be set at liberty forthwith, unless his custody is required in connection with any other case.