Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 319 (AP)

P. R. AMRUTHA v. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

2017-06-13

C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J.UMA DEVI

body2017
ORDER : C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY, J. 1. Wife of one H.S.Praveen Kumar @ Praveen (hereinafter referred to as 'the detenu') filed this writ petition for quashing the detention order, dated 13.10.2016, in Ref.No.C.1/916/M/2016 passed by respondent No. 2. 2. Shorn of unnecessary details, the main ground, as it has turned out, on which the detention order is questioned is that the detenu was not furnished with translated copies of certain documents in the language known to him, by the detaining authority. It is the specific plea of the petitioner that the detenu is a native of Karnataka State and he does not know Telugu and that failure of respondent No. 2 to furnish the translated documents in vernacular language of the alleged detenu caused grave prejudice to his interests. 3. At the hearing, while Mr.Vinod Kumar Deshpande, learned Senior Counsel, representing Mr.P. Nagendra Reddy, learned Counsel for the petitioner, has drawn our attention to paragraph No. 8 of the counter-affidavit filed by respondent No. 2, wherein it is stated that the order of detention and grounds of detention were supplied to the alleged detenu in three languages viz., Telugu, English and Kannada. He submitted that though it is stated in the detention order that the grounds of detention in Telugu, English and Kannada were furnished to the alleged detenu, but the material based on which respondent No. 2 has passed the detention order was not translated in the language known to the alleged detenu and supplied to him as envisaged under Article 22 (5) of the Constitution of India. In support of his contention, he has placed reliance on the judgments of the Apex Court in Smt. Icchu Devi Choraria v. Union of India, (1980) 4 Supreme Court Cases 531; and Powanammal v. State of T.N., (1999) 2 Supreme Court Cases 413 and the judgment of this Court in Renu Kumar Bagalakoti v. State of Telangana and others, 2016 (2) ALD (Crl.) 966. 4. Mr. Surya Prakash Rao, learned Special Government Pleader, while opposing the above submission of learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, submitted that though the confessional statements/recovery panchanamas filed on record from page Nos. 409 to 441 were not in English language, the entire contents of the said documents were copiously referred to in the remand report prepared in English. 4. Mr. Surya Prakash Rao, learned Special Government Pleader, while opposing the above submission of learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, submitted that though the confessional statements/recovery panchanamas filed on record from page Nos. 409 to 441 were not in English language, the entire contents of the said documents were copiously referred to in the remand report prepared in English. To buttress this submission, he has invited this Court's attention to the contents of the confessional statements/recovery panchanams prepared in Telugu and the contents of the remand report pertaining to the alleged detenu. He has accordingly submitted that no prejudice was caused to the alleged detenu on account of non-translation of the confessional statements/recovery panchanamas prepared in Telugu. 5. We have carefully considered the submissions of the learned Counsel for the parties with reference to the record. 6. In Smt. Icchu Devi Choraria (1st supra), the Supreme Court accepted the plea of the detenu that requirement of Article 22 (5) of the Constitution of India is that the detaining authority should not only communicate to the detenu the grounds on which the order of detention has been made, but also furnish all statements and documents relied upon in the grounds of detention within the stipulated time. 7. In Powanammal (2nd supra) the Supreme Court held that non supply of copies of documents relied on in the grounds of detention in the language known to the detenu is fatal and the detention order is liable to be quashed on that ground alone. 8. In Renu Kumar Bagalakoti (3rd supra) this Court, having considered the case laws on the subject, held that non-supply of translated copies of material, on which reliance was placed in the detention order, vitiates the same. 9. The object behind the requirement of furnishing translated copies of documents in the language known to the detenu is to enable him to know the contents thereof in order to make an effective representation. 10. From the material on record, it is clear that as the confessional statements and seizure panchanamas were prepared in Telugu and they were translated in English in the remand report filed at page No. 781 of the papers filed by the learned Special Government Pleader. Admittedly, the remand report was supplied to the detenu within the prescribed period of five days from the date of detention. Admittedly, the remand report was supplied to the detenu within the prescribed period of five days from the date of detention. So much so, it cannot be said that the detenu has suffered prejudice on account of non-supply of translated copies of confessional statements/recovery panchanamas. 11. For the above mentioned reasons, the Writ Petition is dismissed. 12. As a sequel to dismissal of the writ petition, W.P.M.P.No.11914 of 2017 shall stand disposed of as infructuous.