Back
2014 Supreme(Mad) 1353
High Court of Judicature at Madras
V. DHANAPALAN & G. CHOCKALINGAM, JJ.
Vennila
Versus
The State of Tamilnadu, rep. by its Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition & Excise Department & Another
H.C.P. No. 2857 of 2013
Decided on : 17-06-2014
For the Petitioner:P.K. Ilavarasan, Advocate.
For the Respondents: P. Govindarajan, Addl. Public Prosecutor.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the importance of ensuring the right to effective representation for a detained individual, as guaranteed under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India.
Headnote:
Detention - Habeas Corpus - Variation in translation of remand extension order deprived detenu of effective representation - Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India
Fact of the Case:
The detenu, branded as a 'Goonda' under the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982, was detained based on various criminal cases. The petitioner, the detenu's mother, challenged the detention order mainly on the ground of variation in translation of the remand extension order, which deprived the detenu of effective representation.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that there was a contradiction in the translation of the remand extension order, which deprived the detenu of the opportunity to make effective representation, thus infringing the right ensured under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India. As a result, the impugned detention order was quashed, and the Habeas Corpus Petition was allowed, ordering the detenu's immediate release.
Issues: The main issue was the variation in translation of the remand extension order and its impact on the detenu's right to effective representation.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was influenced by the infringement of the detenu's right ensured under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India due to the variation in translation, which deprived the detenu of the opportunity to make effective representation.
Final Decision: The impugned detention order was quashed, and the Habeas Corpus Petition was allowed, ordering the detenu's immediate release.
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 the order of the 2nd respondent passed in Memo No.987/BDFGISSV/2013, dated 13.09.2013.
2. The detenu came to adverse notice in the following cases:-
Sl.No
Police Station and Crime
No. Sections of Law
1.
Ponneri P.S. Cr.No.294/2012 147, 148, 341, 294(b), 324, 506(ii)
IPC r/w 307 & 436 IPC.
2.
Ponneri P.S. Cr.No.487/2012 399 IPC
3.
Ponneri P.S. Cr.No.691/2012 294(b), 323, 324, 506(ii) IPC.
4.
Ponneri P.S. Cr.No.704/2012 457, 380 IPC.
The ground case alleged against the detenu is one registered on 28.08.2013 by the Inspector of Police, K-5 Peravallore Police Station in Crime No.1822/2013 for the offences under Sections 341, 392, 397, 336 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 extension order dated 12.09.2013 annexed in the booklet, 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 extension order dated 12.09.2013 annexed in Page No.76 of the booklet with the Vernacular version annexed in page 77 of the booklet would reveal some defects in translation. The English version of the remand extension order reads thus:
"Accused not seen on 12.09.13 Through Video Conference. Next Hearing date 26.09.13.”
The Vernacular version reads thus:
“TAMIL”
6. On verification of the English and Vernacular version of the remand extension order found in pages 76 and 77 of the booklet, it is seen that there is contradiction in translation. In the English version, it is stated that 'Next Hearing date 26.09.13.' But, in the Vernacular version, it is stated that 'the remand date is extended till 26.09.2013'. Thus, when there is discrepancy between English and Vernacular 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, Jawahar, S/o. Ramesh made in Memo No.987/BDFGISSV/2013, dated 13.09.2013, is quashed and the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed. The above named detenu, who is detained at the Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai, is ordered to be set at liberty forthwith, unless his custody is required in connection with any other case.
