N. Rani v. The State of Tamilnadu & Ors.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 8.1.2008CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.D.DINAKARAN ANDTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.REGUPATHIH.C.P.No.1666 of 2007N. Rani.. PetitionerVs1. The State of Tamilnadu rep. by Secretary to Government Department of Home, Prohibition & Excise Fort St. George Chennai 600 009.2. The Commissioner of Police Greater Chennai City Egmore, Chennai – 8... Respondents-----Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitutionof India for issue of Writ of Habeas Corpus praying to setaside the order of detention dated 24.09.2007 made in orderNo.376/07 on the file of the 2nd respondent and direct therespondents herein to produce the detenu Ramachandran @Kulla Son of Nagaraj before this Honourable Court and toset him at liberty.-----For Petitioner:Mr.N.Duraisami forM/s.D.KannanFor Respondents:Mr.N.R.ElangoAdditional Public Prosecutor-----O R D E R(Order of the Court was made by P.D.DINAKARAN,J.)The second respondent herein clamped an order ofdetention as against the son of the petitioner viz., Kulla@ Ramachandran, son of Nagaraj, as the said authorityarrived at the subjective satisfaction that the said detenu https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ is a Goonda and he has to be detained under Section 3(1) of theTamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers,Drug Offenders, Forest Officers, Goondas, Immoral TrafficOffenders, Sand Offenders, Slum Grabbers and Video Pirates Act,1982 (Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982).2. Challenging the abovesaid detention, the petitionerhas come forward with the present Habeas Corpus Petition seekinga writ of habeas corpus to call for the records pertaining tothe detention order passed against the detenu by the secondrespondent in Memo No.376/BDFGISSV/2007, dated 24.9.2007, setaside the same and to direct the respondents to produce the bodyof the detenu, now detained at Central Prison, Chennai beforethis Court and to set him at liberty.3.1. The order of detention dated 24.9.2007 was passed onthe basis of ground case in Crime No.561 of 2007 for allegedcommission of offences under Sections 341, 336, 427, 385, 307and 506(ii) IPC, complaint of which was lodged by one Marimuthu.According to the complainant, on 19.7.2007, while he wasproceeding along with his friend Murugesan at the junction ofEthiraj Road and E.H.Road, the detenu herein and his associatesRaji @ Rajkumar @ Vellai Raj and Munusamy @ Samy came there andwrongfully restrained them and demanded money. When theyrefused to pay money, the detenu and his associates threatenedthem at the knife point and the detenu attempted to cutMarimuthu over his head and Marimuthu warded off the attack withhis right hand. However the knife fell over his right hand andcaused bleeding injury to him. On hearing the hue and cry ofMarimuthu, the public who were at the spot came for his rescue.On seeing the public, the detenu and his associates picked upcool drinks bottles from the nearby bunk shop and hurled thesame against them. The bottles fell on the road side, brokeninto pieces and scattered all over the road. The publicapprehending danger to their lives ran for safety, shop vendorsclosed the shops and the entire traffic came to standstillcausing insecurity in the minds of the public. At that time,the police personnel attached to P6 Kodungaiyur Police Station,who were on rounds, came to the spot and apprehended the detenuand his associates with the help of public and retrieved theknife. Based on the complaint given by the complainant, a case,as stated above, was registered. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

3.2. The second respondent, taking note of the above case asa ground case and finding that there are four adverse casespending against the detenu viz., (i) Crime No.1545/2005 on thefile of P4 Basin Bridge Police Station under Sections 302 and380 IPC; (ii) Crime Nos.222 & 228/2007 on the file of P3Vyasarpadi Police Station under Sections 147, 148, 341, 302,323, 392 and 506(ii) IPC and (iii) Crime No.557/2007 on the fileof P6 Kodungaiyur Police Station under Sections 341, 384 and 506(ii) IPC and having satisfied that there is a compellingnecessity to detain him in order to prevent him from indulgingin the activities which are prejudicial to the maintenance ofpublic order, ordered his detention branding him as a Goonda.4. The learned counsel for the petitioner challenges theimpugned order of detention dated 24.9.2007 on the main groundof defective translation between the English and Tamil versionsfound at page Nos.429 and 430, which is a arrest report. Hesubmits that in the English version in column 6 of the arrestreport, it is stated that,'How disposed of with date and hour of disposal: jpnuf nrhjid bra;J nc&nlhtpy; itf;fg;gl;lJ/whereas in the translated Tamil version, it is stated that, 'Kiwg;go jpnuf nrhjid bra;ag;gl;L gpd;g[ ePjpkd;wk;mDg;gg;gl;lhh;fs;/'According to the learned counsel, in view of the above defectivetranslation, the detenu was not in a position to make aneffective representation and hence the order of detentionvitiates.5. Communicate is a strong word. It requires thatsufficient knowledge of the basic facts consisting the groundsshould be imparted effectively and fully to the detenu inwriting in a language which he understands, so as to enable thedetenu to make a purposeful and effective representation. Wherethe grounds are not properly translated, it would tantamount tonot serving the grounds to the detenu and would thus vitiate thedetention ex facie. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

6. In the instant case, as rightly pointed out by thelearned counsel for the petitioner, it is apparent on the faceof record that there is a defective translation in the arrestreport furnished to the detenu in Tamil version, as to theremanding of the accused to judicial custody. In the Englishversion, it is stated that the detenu was sent to remand,whereas in the Tamil version, it is stated that he is remandedto judicial custody. Failure to furnish the properly translatedversion of the arrest report would amount to denial of the rightof being communicated the grounds and of being afforded theopportunity of making an effective representation against theorder of detention. Hence, the order of detention is vitiated. Accordingly, the order of detention dated 24.9.2007 is setaside and the habeas corpus petition is allowed. The detenuKulla @ Ramachandran is directed to be set at liberty forthwithunless his presence is required in connection with any othercase.ATRSd/Asst. Registrar/true copy/Sub Asst.RegistrarTo:1. Secretary to Government Department of Prohibition & Excise Government of Tamilnadu Fort St. George Chennai 600 009.2. The Commissioner of Police Greater Chennai City Egmore, Chennai – 8.3. The Superintendent, Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

4. The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.5.The Joint Secretary to Govt,Public Law and order Department,Fort St George, Chennai.9 + One cc to Mr. N. Doraisam, Advocate SR 1337RSV (co)sg 01/02/08H.C.P.No.1666 of 20078.1.2008