Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 1844 (MAD)

Nathiya v. Secretary to the Government

2014-07-02

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 "Black Marketeer" as contemplated under the Prevention of Black Marketing and Maintenance of Supplies of Essential Commodities Act, 1980 and detained under order of the third respondent passed in C3.D.O.No.12/2014 dated 10.02.2014. 2. The detenu is not involved in any adverse case. In para 2 of the grounds of detention, it is stated that the detenu is involved in the commission of the offence, which took place on 01.02.2014 at 01.00 hours, which led to the registration of a case by Inspector of Police, CSCID, Vellore, in Crime No.24 of 2014 for the offences under Section 6(4) of TNSC (RDCS) Order, 1982 r/w 7(1)(a)(ii) of E.C. Act, 1955. It is further stated that the detenu was arrested on the same day and produced before the Judicial Magistrate No. IV, Vellore on 01.02.2014 and remanded to judicial custody. The detaining authority, on being satisfied upon the materials placed before him that the activities of the detenu are prejudicial to the maintenance of public order, clamped the order of detention. Challenging the said order, the petitioner is before this Court by way of this habeas corpus petition. 3. Amidst several grounds raised, learned counsel for the petitioner pointed out that there is variation in translation in respect of the registration number of the vehicle, in which, the PDS rice was transported. In the English version, in para 2(a) of the grounds of detention, it has been simply stated that on enquiry, the detenu stated his name and address. But in the vernacular version, it has been stated that the detenu stated his name and address and admitted that he is the owner of the vehicle and house. Therefore, the said variation in translation prevented the detenu from making effective representation for redressal of his grievance and the impugned detention order is liable to be quashed. 4. We have heard the learned Senior Central Government Standing Counsel and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor on the above submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the records. 5. On a perusal of the detention order, it is crystal clear that there is variation in respect of narration of events between the English version and the vernacular version. 5. On a perusal of the detention order, it is crystal clear that there is variation in respect of narration of events between the English version and the vernacular version. In para 2(a) of the English version of grounds of detention, it has been stated as follows: “On enquiry he stated his name and address as Selvaraj, (33) S/o Krishnan, No.2/132, Kurisilapattu Village, Vaniyambadi Taluk, Vellore District. As he was not having any authentication for the possession of the Public Distribution System rice, the Inspector of Police arrested him at 01.15 hrs after informing the reasons for arrest.....” whereas in the vernacular version of the grounds of detention, it has been stated as under: “LANGUAGE” From the above, it is seen that in the vernacular version of the grounds of detention, it has been stated that the detenu is the owner of the vehicle – Bolero Maxitruck bearing Regn. No.TN 23 BX 2692. But in the English version, nothing has been stated in respect of the ownership of the vehicle. Therefore, it is clear that there is variation in respect of narration of events between the English Version and the Vernacular version of the grounds of detention. Hence the defective translation would vitiate the order of detention. On this sole ground, the order of detention is liable to be quashed. 6. In the result, this habeas corpus petition is allowed and the impugned detention order made in C3. D.O.No.12/2014 dated 10.02.2014, is set aside. The detenu – Selvaraj, S/o. Krishnan, is directed to be set at liberty forthwith, unless his custody is required in connection with any other case.