Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 666 (MAD)

D. Panchatcharam Gounder v. State of Tamil Nadu

2014-03-17

G.CHOCKALINGAM, V.DHANAPALAN

body2014
Judgment : V. Dhanapalan, J. 1. The petitioner is the father of the detenu and challenge is made to the order of detention dated 12.09.2013 made in No.C2/26271/2013 passed by the second respondent under which the detenu has been branded as a 'Sand Offender' and detained under sub-section (1) of section 3 of the Tamilnadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Forest Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders, Sand Offenders, Slum Grabbers and Video Pirates Act, 1982 (Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982) read with the order issued by the Government in G.O.(D) No.154, Home, Prohibition and Excise (XVI) Department, dated 18.07.2013 under sub-section (2) of section 3 of the Tamil Nadu Act, 1982. 2. The detenu came to adverse notice in the following cases : Sl. No. Police Station & Crime No. Section of Law 1 Kanai Police StationCr.No.387/2012 379 IPC r/w 21(1) Mines and Minerals Act, 1957 2 Kanai Police StationCr.No.29/2013 379 IPC r/w 21(1) Mines and Minerals Act, 1957 The ground case alleged against the detenu is one registered on 12.08.2013 in Crime No.282/2013 under Sections 379, 353, 307 I.P.C. r/w 21(1) of Mines and Minerals Act. 3. The detenu came to adverse notice on earlier occasions and on 12.08.2013, he was found driving a Tractor with Tipper loaded with river sand, without Registration number and he was arrested and produced before the Judicial Magistrate No.I, Villupuram on the same day and remanded. 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 peace and public order, clamped the order of detention. Challenging the said order, petitioner is before this Court by way of this Habeas Corpus Petition. 4. The main thrust of the arguments made by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that there is variation in the translation of vital information, which would deprive the detenu from making an effective representation for redressal of his grievance. Learned counsel would submit that in para 5 of the English version of the detention order, it has been stated that the detenu is remanded at Sub Jail, Villupuram in connection with the case in Crime No.282/2013 of Kanai Police Station. Whereas, in the Tamil version of the detention order, the name of the police station is stated as 'Villupuram West Police Station'. Whereas, in the Tamil version of the detention order, the name of the police station is stated as 'Villupuram West Police Station'. Similarly, in paragraph 3 of the English and Tamil version of the detention order, there is variation with regard to the name of the police station. 5. We have heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor on the above submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner. 6. For appreciating the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the relevant averments in paras 3 and 5 of the English version of the detention order are extracted hereunder : "3. ... Accused was Tractor with Tipper were brought to Kanai Police Station and a case was registered in Cr.No.282/2013 u/s 379, 353, 307 IPC r/w 21(1) Mines and Minerals Act at 13.30 hrs. Accused Logu alias Loganathan was produced before the Judicial Magistrate No.I, Villupuram on 12.08.2013 and he was remanded till 26.08.2013. Lastly his remand was extended till 20.09.2013. Now, he has been kept at Sub Jail, Villupuram. 5. I am aware that Thiru. Logu alias Loganathan, Son of Panchatcharam Gounder is now in remand at Sub Jail, Villupuram in connection with the case in Cr.No.282/2013 of Kanai Police Station, I am also aware that Thiru. Loganathan alias Loganathan, Son of Panchatcharam Gounder. Further he has moved a bail application before the District Sessions Principal Judge, Villupuram in C.M.P.No.5942/2013 for Cr.No.282/2013 of Kanai Police Station and the same is pending. However, I infer that it is very likely he (Logu @ Loganathan) come out on bail in the above case. ..." Whereas, paras 3 and 5 of the vernacular version of the detention order would read as under : “(LANGUAGE)” 7. From a reading of the above portion of the detention order, it is clear that the detenue was in remand in connection with a case in Crime No.282/2013 at Kanai Police Station. While so, the Tamil version of the detention order shows that the detenu was in remand at Villupuram West Police Station. Since the translated version is defective, it will definitely create confusion in the mind of the detenu to make an effective representation in respect of redressal of his grievance. Therefore, the defective translation would vitiate the order of detention and on this ground itself, the order of detention is liable to be quashed. 8. Since the translated version is defective, it will definitely create confusion in the mind of the detenu to make an effective representation in respect of redressal of his grievance. Therefore, the defective translation would vitiate the order of detention and on this ground itself, the order of detention is liable to be quashed. 8. In the result, this Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and the impugned detention order made in No.C2/26271/2013 dated 12.09.2013 is set aside. The detenu - Logu alias Loganathan, S/o. Panchatcharam Gounder, is directed to be set at liberty forthwith, unless his custody is required in connection with any other case. However, this order shall not preclude the prosecution from conducting cases effectively and shall not confer any right to the detenu before the Regular Court.