Ramesh v. The State of Tamil Nadu

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDated:- 27.02.2008Coram:-The Hon'ble Mr. Justice P.D.DINAKARANandThe Hon'ble Mr. Justice R.REGUPATHIHabeas Corpus Petition No.1316 of 2007Ramesh... Petitionervs.1. The State of Tamil Nadu, rep. by its Secretary to Govt.,Prohibition & Excise Dept.,Fort St. George, Chennai 600 009.2. The Commissioner of Police, Greater Chennai, Egmore, Chennai 600 008.... RespondentsPetition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for theissuance of a writ of habeas corpus to direct the respondents toproduce the petitioner ie., Ramesh, now confined in Central Prison, Chennai, before court and set him at liberty by calling for therecords pertaining to the order of detention, dated 16.07.2007,passed by the second respondent, bearing ReferenceNo.332/BDFGISSV/2007.For petitioner: Mr.R.ThanjanFor respondents: Mr.N.R.Elango, Addl. Public Prosecutor.J U D G M E N T(Delivered by R.REGUPATHI, J.)The petitioner herein challenges the impugned order ofdetention, dated 16.07.2007, whereby, he has been detained as‘Goonda’ as contemplated under the Tamil Nadu Prevention of DangerousActivities of Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Forest Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders, Sand Offenders, Slum Grabbers and VideoPirates Act, 1982 (Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982). https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

#2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to para No.3the grounds of detention in English, wherein, it has been stated asfollows:" ... The Inspector of Police visited the spot andprepared observation mahazar. ... ", and then drawn our attention to the Tamil translation thereof, whichreads as follows:" fhty; Ma;thsh; rhiyapy; rpjwpf; fple;j fw; fis kf$hpy; ifg; gw; wpdhh;/ "Likewise in the same paragraph of the English version, it has beenmentioned as follows:-" ... by assaulting the public personnel has createdalarm and a feeling of insecurity in the minds of thepeople of the area and thereby acted in a mannerprejudicial to the maintenance of public order. "and the translation of the said portion reads as follows:-;fhtyh; fisj; jhf; fp g[hpe; jjd; K:yk; mth; mg; gFjpthH; kf; fs; kdjpy; gPjpiaa[k;. ghJfhg; gw;w jd; ik czh; ita[k; Vw;gLj;jp. mjd;K:yk; bghJxG';Fg; guhkhpg;g[f;F Fe;jfkhd tifapy; bray; gl; Ls;shh/; Learned counsel argues that there is variation between the Tamil andEnglish versions of the grounds of detention, which led to confusionand resulted in prejudice to the detenu in making an effectiverepresentation.3. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor submits that whiletranslating the document, such an error has occurred, and that thediscrepancy being trivial and minor in nature, the same would in noway prejudice the detenu. 4. A careful perusal of the Tamil and English versions of thegrounds of detention in its entirety shows that, after narration ofthe facts and other particulars, a conclusion has been reached forthe purpose of detaining the petitioner/detenu under preventivedetention. Of course, the aforementioned text is not happilytranslated, however, we find that there is no deviation in conveyingthe crux of the facts in Tamil, thus, there could not have been anyconfusion for the detenu in understanding the point at issue, therefore, we find no merit in the ground raised to assail thedetention order. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

#5. Consequently, the Habeas Corpus Petition stands dismissed. sd/-Asst. Registrar/true copy/Sub Asst. RegistrarJI.To1. Secretary to Govt.,Prohibition & Excise Dept.,Fort St. George, Chennai 600 009.2. The Commissioner of Police, Greater Chennai, Egmore, Chennai 600 008.3. The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.+1 cc To Mr.R.Thanjan, Advocate, SR.11235HCP No.1316 of 2007.ksk [co]gkg/19.3