Back
High Court of Judicature at Madras
V. DHANAPALAN & G. CHOCKALINGAM, JJ.
S. Josphin Mary
Versus
Secretary to Government & Others
H.C.P. No. 2211 of 2013
Decided On : 17-06-2014
Detention Order - Challenge to detention order under Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982 - IPC 379, 457, 380, 454, 341, 323, 294(b), 392, 427, 397, 506(ii) - The court found discrepancies in the translation of the detention order between English and Tamil versions, leading to the denial of the detenu's right to make effective representation, thereby vitiating the order of detention.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner's husband, the detenu, was detained under Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982 as a Goonda based on various criminal cases against him. The challenge was mainly focused on the variation in translation of the detention order, depriving the detenu of effective representation.
Finding of the Court:
The court found discrepancies in the translation of the detention order, leading to the denial of the detenu's right to make effective representation, thereby vitiating the order of detention. 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 detention order, which deprived the detenu of effective representation and infringed upon the right ensured under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was primarily influenced by the discrepancies in the translation of the detention order, which led to the denial of the detenu's right to make effective representation, thereby vitiating the order of detention.
Final Decision: The impugned detention order dated 07.08.2013 was quashed, and the Habeas Corpus Petition was allowed, ordering the detenu's immediate release.
V. Dhanapalan, J.
1. The petitioner's husband is the detenu herein, who has been branded as a Goonda and detained under Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982. Challenge is to the order of detention dated 07.08.2013 made in Memo No. 627/BDFGISSV of 2013 passed by the 2nd respondent under which the detenu has been branded as a Goonda.
2. The detenu came to adverse notice in the following case:–
S. No. Police Station & Crime No. Section of Law
1. T6 Avadi P.S. Cr. No. 1635 of 2012 Missing @ 379 IPC
2. T6 Avadi P.S. Cr. No. 1802 of 2012 457 & 380 IPC
3. T1 Ambattur P.S. Cr. No. 2294 of 2012 380 IPC
4. T6 Avadi P.S. Cr. No. 1861 of 2012 380 IPC
5. T6 Avadi P.S. Cr. No. 1882 of 2012 380 IPC
6. T1 Ambattur P.S. Cr. No. 2537 of 2012 380 IPC
7. T6 Avadi P.S. Cr. No. 434 of 2013 380 IPC
8. T7 Tank Factory Police Station Cr. No. 138 of 2013 380 IPC
9. T7 Tank Factory Police Station Cr. No. 256 of 2013 454 & 380 IPC
10. T6 Avadi P.S. Cr. No. 1021 of 2013 379 IPC
11. T6 Avadi P.S. Cr. No. 1103 of 2013 379 IPC
12. T7 Tank Factory Police Station Crime No. 292 of 2013 454 & 380 IPC
13. T6 Avadi P.S. Cr. No. 1074 of 2013 457 & 380 IPC
14. T6 Avadi P.S. Cr. No. 1101 of 2013 454 & 380 IPC
15. T6 Avadi P.S. Cr. No. 1104 of 2013 454 & 380 IPC
16. T6 Avadi P.S. Cr. No. 1125 of 2013 380 IPC
17. T7 Tank Factory Police Station Crime No. 330 of 2013 454 & 380 IPC
18. T10 Thirumullaivoyal P.S. Crime No. 783 of 2013 380 IPC
19. T6 Avadi P.S. Cr. No. 1265 of 2013 379 IPC
20. T6 Avadi P.S. Cr. No. 1446 of 2013 380 IPC
21. T6 Avadi P.S. Cr. No. 1426 of 2013 454 & 380 IPC
22. T6 Avadi P.S. Cr. No. 1435 of 2013 380 IPC
The ground case alleged against the detenu is one registered on 21.07.2013 by the Inspector of Police, T-6 Avadi Police Station, Crime No. 1454 of 2013 for offences under Sections 341, 323, 294 (b), 392, 427 r/w 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 detention order dated 07.08.2013, both the English and Tamil version would reveal some defects in translation. The English version of the detention order, at page 10, it is stated that:-
"During the course of investigation, the Inspector of Police has arrested accused Thiru. Sundar @ Daniel and Thiru. Tajudeen on 21.07.2013 at about 14.10 hours near Avadi Railway Overbridge during vehicle check when the accused came there in a motor cycle and examined. On enquiry, accused Thiru.Sundar @ Daniel admitted that apart from the above case, he was involved in T-6 Avadi Police Station Crime Nos. 1635/2012, 18012/2012, 1861/2012, 1882/2012, 434/2013, 1021/2013, 1103/2013, 1074/2013, 1101/2013, 1104/2013, 1125/2013, 1265/2013, 1446/2013, 1426/2013 and 1435/2013 and T-1 Ambattur P.S. Cr. Nos. 2294/2012 and 2537/2012 and T-7 Tank Factory P.S. Cr. Nos. 138/2013, 256/2013, 292/2013 and 330/2013 and T-10 Thirumullaivoyal P.S. Cr. No. 783/2013. Accused Thiru. Tajudeen admitted that apart from the above case, he was involved in T-6 Avadi P.S. Cr. Nos. 1101/2013, 1104/2013, 1125/2013 and 1426/2013. ”
The Tamil version reads thus:
TAMIL
6. On verification of the English and Tamil version of the detention order, it is seen that there is contradiction in translation. In fact, a portion of the English version, is found missing in the Tamil version, thereby, the alleged involvement of the detenu in the crimes involving other police stations namely T-1 Ambattur P.S. T.7 Tank Factory P.S. and T.10 Thirumullaivoyal P.S. are all missing in the tamil version. In other words, the following version of the detention order is not translated in tamil:
“T-1 Ambattu
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
