Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 920 (MAD)

R. Narayanan v. Secretary to the Government

2014-04-15

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 24.08.2013 made in Memo No.792/BDFGISSV/2013 passed by the second respondent under which the detenu has been branded as a 'Goonda' 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.120, Home, Prohibition and Excise (XVI) Department, dated 18.07.2013 under sub-section (2) of section 3 of the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982. 2. The detenu came to adverse notice in the following cases : Sl. No. Police Station & Crime No. Section of Law 1. H-6 Dr.R.K.Nagar Police Station Crime No.192/2013 147, 148, 302 and 120(b) IPC 2. M-4 Redhills Police Station Crime No.1491/2013 384 and 506(ii) IPC The ground case alleged against the detenu is one registered on 02.08.2013 by the Inspector of Police, Law and Order, M.3 Puzhal Police Station in Crime No.1294/2013 for the offences under Sections 294(b), 392, 397, 336 and 506(ii) IPC. 3. It is seen that the detenu was arrested on 02.08.2013 and is in remand. 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, 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 besides other several grounds is that the document viz., remand order dated 02.08.2013 has not been properly translated and furnished to the detenu to enable him to avail an opportunity of making an effective representation, which is a right guaranteed under Article 22 (5) of the Constitution of India. 5. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor relying on the supporting affidavit filed by the Inspector of Police, (L&O), M-3 Puzhal Police Station, would submit that apart from the above said adverse and ground cases, the detenu is also involved in yet another case and therefore, he cannot be set at liberty. 6. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the records. 7. 6. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the records. 7. In the Detention Order, the 2nd respondent herein has arrived at a suggestion as could be seen from paragraph 4, which is as follows:- "4. I am also aware that Thiru. Sriram who was remanded in M-3 Puzhal Police Station Cr.No.1294/2013 and M4 Redhills PS Cr.No.1491/2013 has filed a bail petition in M-3 Puzhal Police Station Cr.No.1294/2013 before the Principal Sessions Judge, Thiruvallur vide Crl.M.P.No.2084/2012 and the same is pending. The Sponsoring Authority has states that his relatives are taking action by file bail application for M4 Cr.No.1491/2013 before appropriate court. In a similar case, registered at H-1 Washermenpet P.S.Cr.No.651/2013 u/s.341, 384 and 506(ii) IPC bail was granted by the XV Metropolitan Court, George Town, Chennai to the accused, in Crl.O.P.Nos.749 & 750/2013. In a similar case, registered in M-3 Puzhal Police Station Cr.No.800/2013, u/s.341, 392, 397, 336 & 506(ii) IPC bail was 2013 before the Principal Sessions Judge, Thiruvallur vide Crl.M.P.No.1228/2013. Hence, I infer that it is very likely of him coming out on bail in M-3 Puzhal Police Station Cr.No.1294 and there is real possibility of his coming out bail in M4 Red hills PS Cr.No.1491/2013 by filing bail application before the court. Since in similar case bails are granted by the court after a lapse of time. If he comes out on bail, he will further indulge in such activities in future, which will be prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. Further, the recourse to normal criminal law will not have the desired effect of effectively preventing him from indulging in such activities, which are prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. On materials, I am satisfied that the said Thiru. Sriram is a Goonda and there is a compelling necessity to detain him in order to prevent him from indulging in such activities which are prejudicial to the maintenance of public order under Section 2(f) of the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982." 8. On analysing the above material information, it could be seen that the detaining authority has relied on the remand order dated 02.08.2013, wherein it is stated that "Accused produced at 8.10 p.m. Grounds of arrest and legal aid informed. No complaints of ill-treatment by police. Remanded to Judicial custody till 16.08.2013." The translated version of the said order would read thus: (“TAMIL”) 9. No complaints of ill-treatment by police. Remanded to Judicial custody till 16.08.2013." The translated version of the said order would read thus: (“TAMIL”) 9. On comparing the above orders, it is seen that the vital part in the English version "legal aid informed" is omitted in the Tamil version of the detention order, which deprives the detenu's right guaranteed under the Constitution of India. 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. 10. Accordingly, the impugned detention order passed by the second respondent in Memo No.792/BDFGISSV/2013 dated 24.08.2013 is hereby quashed and the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed. The detenu, namely Sriram in this case is 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.