The central legal point established in the judgment is that variation in translation of a detention order, depriving the detenu of making effective representation, infringes the right ensured under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India.

V. Dhanapalan, J.

1. The petitioner is the friend 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.1342/BDFGISSV/2013, dated 15.10.2013

2. The detenu came to adverse notice in the following cases:-

Sl.No. Police Station and Crime

No. Sections of Law

1. S10 Pallikaranai

P.S.Crime No.104/2013 379 I.P.C.

2. S-8 Adambakkam P.S. Crime No.840/2013 379 I.P.C.

3. S-8 Adambakkam P.S.

Crime No.908/2013 379 I.P.C.

4. S-8 Adambakkam P.S.

Crime No.921/2013 379 I.P.C.

5. S-8 Adambakkam P.S.

Crime No.925/2013 379 I.P.C.

The ground case alleged against the detenu is one registered on 24.09.2013 by the Inspector of Police, S-8 Adambakkam Police Station, in Crime No. 960/2013 for offences under Sections 341, 336, 392, 427, 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 detention order itself 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 English version of the detention order with the Tamil version would reveal some defects in translation. The English version of the detention order, at page No: 5, reads thus:

"I am also aware that Thiru. Mohammad Sali who was remanded in S-8 Adambakkam P.S. Cr. No's. 840/2013, 908/2013, 921/2013, 925/2013 and 960/2013 and S-10 Pallikaranai P.S. Cr. No: 104/2013 has filed bail petition in S-8, Adambakkam P.S. Cr. No: 925/2013 before the Judicial Magistrate, Alandur, vide Crl.M.P. No: 9359 /2013 and the same was dismissed on 10.10.2013.”

The Tamil version, which finds a place at page No: 17 of the typed set, reads thus:

(TAMIL)

6. Thus, it is seen that there is contradiction in translation. In the English version, it is stated ' the detenu has filed bail petition in S-8, Adambakkam P.S. Cr. No: 925/2013 before the Judicial Magistrate, Alandur, vide Crl.M.P. No: 9359 /2013 and the same was dismissed on 10.10.2013.' But, in the Tamil version, it is stated that, Thus, when there is discrepancy between English and Tamil versions in the detention order itself, 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, Mohammad Sali, S/o. Moideen Kutty, made in No: 1342/2013 dated 15.10.2013, 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 otherwise required in connection with any other case.