Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 1857 (MAD)

Sarala v. Secretary to Government

2014-07-02

G.CHOCKALINGAM, V.DHANAPALAN

body2014
Judgment V. Dhanapalan, J. 1. The petitioner is the mother 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 2ndrespondent passed in No.1103/BDFGISSV/2013, dated 24.09.2013. 2. The detenu came to adverse notice in the following cases: S.No. Police Station and Crime No. Sections of Law 1 K-2 Ayyanavaram Police Station Crime No.923/2013 380 IPC 2 K-2 Ayyanavaram Police Station Crime No.936/2013 341, 294(b), 427, 506(1) IPC and 4 of WHP Act, 1998 The ground case alleged against the detenu is one registered on 07.09.2013 by the Sub Inspector of Police, G-5 Secretariat Colony Police Station in Crime No.758/2013 for offences under Sections 341, 294(b), 397, 307, 336, 427 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 argument on the ground that there is improper translation of the bail petition in Crl.M.P.No.12042 of 2013 in respect of the ground case. The learned counsel would submit that the second paragraph of the said bail petition has not been properly translated and the detaining authority has relied on the said bail petition. For the above reason, 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. From a perusal of the booklet, particularly, page no.92, it is seen that there is variation in the second paragraph of the bail petition between the English and Vernacular version. In the English version of the bail petition filed before the Principal Sessions Court, Chennai in Crl.M.P.No.12042 of 2013 found at Page No.80, it has been stated as “One Harikrishnan, has lodged a complaint stating that the petitioner has robbed a sum of Rs.125/- with knife point from the defacto complainant's shirt pocket.” whereas in the Vernacular version at Page No.94, it has been stated as (“Language”) When there is a variation in translation, that too in the document relied on by the detaining authority, 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. 6. On the above ground, the detention order is liable to be set aside. Accordingly, the impugned detention order passed by the second respondent in No.1103/BDFGISSV/2013, dated 24.09.2013 is hereby quashed and the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed. The detenu, namely Karthik @ Loose Karthikin this case is set at liberty forthwith, unless his custody is required in connection with any other case. 7. 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.