Madras High Court
Amudha vs State Rep. By on 14 June, 2014
Author: V.Dhanapalan
Bench: V.Dhanapalan, G.Chockalingam
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS Dated: 14.06.2014 Coram: THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE V.DHANAPALAN and THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE G.CHOCKALINGAM H.C.P.No.2835 of 2013 Amudha ... Petitioner -vs- 1. State rep. by The State of Tamil Nadu, rep. by Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Government of Tamil Nadu, Fort St. George, Chennai 600 009. 2. The Commissioner of Police, Egmore, Chennai 600 008. ... Respondents Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a writ of Habeas Corpus, to call for the records in connection with the order of detention passed by the 2nd respondent dated 06.09.2013 in BDFGISVV 916/2013 against the petitioner's husband Arul @ Arunpandian, S/o.Ravi, aged 24 years, who is confined at Central Prison, Chennai and set aside the same and direct the respondents to produce him before this Court and set him at liberty. For Petitioner : Mr.A.Balamurugan For Respondents : Mr.P.Govindarajan Addl. Public Prosecutor O R D E R
(Order of the Court was made by V.Dhanapalan,J.) 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 2nd respondent passed in Memo No.916/BDFGISSV/2013, dated 06.09.2013.
2. The detenu came to adverse notice in the following cases:-
Sl.No. Police Station and Crime No. Sections of Law
1.
E.1 Mylapore Police Station Crime No.717/2010 379 IPC 2.
E.5 Foreshore Estate Police Station, Crime No.720/2010 379 IPC
3. E.5 Foreshore Estate Police Station, Crime No.867/2010 379 IPC
4. E.5 Foreshore Estate Police Station, Crime No.2367/2011 379 IPC
5. E.5 Foreshore Estate Police Station, Crime No.180/2012 379 IPC 6 E.5 Foreshore Estate Police Station, Crime No.304/2012 379 IPC 7 E.4 Abiramapuram Police Station Crime No.36/2012 379 IPC 8 E.4 Abiramapuram Police Station Crime No.243/2012 379 IPC 9 J.4 Kotturpuram Police Station Crime No.67/2012 379 IPC 10 E.1 Mylapore Police Station Crime No.41/2013 379 IPC 11 E.1 Mylapore Police Station Crime No.505/2013 379 IPC 12 J.4 Kotturpuram Police Station Crime No.790/2013 379 IPC The ground case alleged against the detenu is one registered on 30.08.2013 by the Inspector of Police, J4 Kotturpuram Police Station in Crime No.1378/2013 for offences under Sections 341, 323, 427, 336, 397 and 506(ii) IPC.
3. Though the learned counsel for the petitioner has raised several other grounds to assail the order of detention, he mainly focused his arguments on the ground that there is variation in translation of the remand order dated 30.08.2013, which has deprived the detenu in 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 a comparison of the English version of the remand order dated 30.08.2013 annexed in Page No.194/1 of the booklet with the Tamil version annexed in page No.194/2 would reveal some defects in translation. The English version of the remand order reads thus:
Remand Order dated 30.08.2013.
Accused produced at 6.15 p.m. Grounds of arrest legal aid explained. No complaints. Remanded till 13.09.2013. The Tamil version reads thus:
"
milg;g[f; fhty; cj;jut[ ehs; 04/07/2013 vjphp khiy 06/15 kzpf;F M$h;gLj;jg;gl;lhh;/ nghyPrhUf;F vjpuhd g[fhh; vJt[kpy;iy/ Fw;wj;jpd; jd;ik tpsf;fg;gl;lJ/ 13/09/2013 Mk; njjp tiu ePjpkd;w fhtYf;Fl;gLj;jg;gl;lhh;/ "
6. On verification of the English version of the remand order dated 30.08.2013 furnished at page no.194/1 of the booklet with that of the Tamil version furnished at page 194/2, it is seen that there is contradiction in translation. Firstly, in the Tamil version of the remand order, the date of order is wrongly mentioned as 04.07.2013 instead of 30.08.2013. Secondly, the aspect 'legal aid explained' stated in the English version is omitted to be translated in the Tamil version. Thus, when there is discrepancy between English and Tamil versions, the opportunity of making effective representation upon knowledge of the factual situation stands denied to the detenu and the same, which amounts to 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, Arul @ Arulpandian made in BDFGISSV No.916/2013 dated 06.09.2013, is quashed and the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed. The above named detenu is ordered to be set at liberty forthwith, unless his custody is required in connection with any other case.
[V.D.P.J.,] [G.C,J.,] 14.06.2014 Index : Yes abe To :
1. The Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Government of Tamil Nadu, Fort St. George, Chennai 600 009.
2. The Commissioner of Police, Egmore, Chennai 600 008.
3. The Public Prosecutor High Court, Madras.
V.DHANAPALAN,J.
AND G.CHOCKALINGAM,J.
abe Order in H.C.P.No.2835 of 2013 Dated: 14.06.2014