Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 929 (MAD)

Rajakumari v. Secretary to Govt.

2014-04-15

G.CHOCKALINGAM, V.DHANAPALAN

body2014
Judgment : V. Dhanapalan, J. 1. The petitioner is the mother of detenu. The detenu has been branded as a "Goonda" under the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982 and detained under order of the 2nd respondent passed in S.C.No.37 of 2013 dated 03.09.2013. 2. The detenu came to adverse notice in the following cases:- Sr.No. Police Station and Crime No. Sections of Law 1. Burgur Police Station, Crime No.403 of 2012 Section 392 IPC 2. Hosur Town Police Station Crime No.22 of 2013 Section 392 IPC 3. Hudco Police Station Crime No.43 of 2013 Section 392 IPC 4. Denkanikottai Police Station Crime No.29 of 2013 Section 392 IPC 5. Thally Police Station Crime No.25 of 2013 Section 392 IPC 6. Hosur Police Station Crime No.287 of 2013 Section 392 IPC 7. Hudco Police Station, Crime No.504 of 2013 Section 392 IPC 8. Bagalur Police Station, Crime No.480 of 2013 Section 392 IPC 9. Krishnagiri Taluk Police Station Crime No.247 of 2013 Section 392 IPC The ground case alleged against the detenu is one registered on 11.07.2013 by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Krishnagiri Taluk Police Station in Crime No.248 of 2013 for offence under Section 392 IPC. Aggrieved by the order of detention, the present petition has been filed. 3. Though learned counsel for the petitioner has raised several other grounds to assail the order of detention, he has mainly focused his argument on the ground that there is a variation in translation of the bail order annexed in the booklet, which has deprived the detenu of making effective representation to the authorities concerned and therefore, on this sole ground, the detention order is liable to be quashed. 4. We have heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor on the above submission. 5. A careful scrutiny of the booklet and comparison of English version with the Tamil translation annexed in the booklet at Page Nos.290 and 291 would reveal some defects in translation, especially at para-4 of the said order. While the English version informs of the following: "4. The Counsel filed the XCA of the Bail Order of the Hon'ble Judicial Magistrate No.I, Krishnagiri in Cr.No.247/13 of the Court. the Tamil version informs thus, (“TAMIL”) 6. While the English version informs of the following: "4. The Counsel filed the XCA of the Bail Order of the Hon'ble Judicial Magistrate No.I, Krishnagiri in Cr.No.247/13 of the Court. the Tamil version informs thus, (“TAMIL”) 6. On verification of the booklet at Page Nos.290 and 291, it comes to light that there is a contradiction in translation between English and Tamil Versions in respect of the same document, viz., bail order. Thus, when there is a discrepancy between English and Tamil version, the opportunity of him making an effective representation upon knowledge of the factual situation stands denied and the same, which amounts to an infringement of right ensured under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India, would vitiate the order of detention. 7. For the aforesaid reason, the impugned detention order passed by the 2nd respondent, detaining the detenu, namely, Thirumal, S/o. Vinayagam, made in S.C.No.37 of 2013 dated 03.09.2013, is quashed and the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed. The above named detenu, who is detained at the Central Prison, Salem, is ordered to be set at liberty forthwith, unless his custody is required in connection with any other case.