S.Kader Mohideen v. The State of Tamil Nadu

In the High Court of Judicature at MadrasDated:28.06.2006Coram:The Hon'ble Mr. Justice P.SATHASIVAMandThe Hon'ble Mr. Justice V.DHANAPALANHabeas Corpus Petition No.2 of 2006S.Kader Mohideen .. Petitionervs.1. The State of Tamil Nadu rep. By the Secretary to the Government Public (SC) Department Fort St. George, Chennai 600 009.2. The Union of India rep. by the Secretary to the Government Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue (COFEPOSA Unit) New Delhi.3. The Superintendent of Central Prison Central Prison, Chennai 600 003. .. Respondents Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of Indiapraying for issuance of writ of habeas corpus as stated therein.For petitioner : Mr.B.Kumar, Sr.counsel For Mr.S.PalanikumarFor respondents : Mr.M.Babu Muthu Meeran 1 and 3 Addl. Public Prosecutor Mr.P.Kumaresan, ACGSC forR.2ORDER(Order of the Court was made by P. SATHASIVAM,J.)The petitioner by name S.Kader Mohideen, challenges the impugnedorder of detention dated 15.12.2005, detaining him under Section 3(1) https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ (i) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention ofSmuggling Activities Act, 1974 (Central Act 52 of 1974). 2. Heard the learned senior counsel for the petitioner as wellas learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondents 1 and 3 andMr.P.Kumaresan, learned Additional Central Government standingcounsel for R.2.3. Mr.B.Kumar, learned senior counsel appearing for thepetitioner, after taking us through the grounds of detention and allother connected materials, mainly contended that the detenu knows toread and write only in Tamil and in view of several discrepancies inthe documents supplied, he was confused while making an effective andmeaningful representation against the detention order, and therefore,the impugned detention order is vitiated. In order to substantiatehis contention, learned senior counsel has brought to our notice theEnglish version of the reply dated 06.12.2005 of the Ministry ofFinance, Department of Revenue, Directorate of Revenue Intelligence,Chennai 17 and the Tamil version of the same. In para 6 of theEnglish version of the said reply it is stated,“In view of the foregoing and on the facts andcircumstances as borne out by the records, yourclaim of innocence appears to beunsustainable. .. “In Tamil, the said version has been translated as,“nkw;fz;lit kw;Wk; Mtz fs; bfhz;Ls;s cz;ikfs; kw;Wk;N:H;epiyfspd;go. epuguhjp vd;gjhd j fsJ nfhhpf;if Vw;g[ilabjdj; njhd;WfpwJ/ //// “ 4. It is true that if we read both versions of the said passagein para 6 of the reply alone, it would give a different meaning.However, as rightly pointed out by the learned Additional PublicProsecutor, if the entire reply is taken into consideration, therewould not be any confusion as claimed by the detenu. We alsoverified the entire translated copy of the reply dated 06.12.2005 andafter reading the same, we agree with the stand taken by the learnedAdditional Public Prosecutor and we are unable to accept the argumentof the learned senior counsel for the petitioner. Further, the saidreply is also not contrary to the statement of fact narrated in para(xi) of the grounds of detention; accordingly, we reject the saidcontention.5. The learned senior counsel for the petitioner has alsopointed out that in English version of the petition under Section 167(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code filed for extension of remand, the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Revenue Intelligence Department has stated that the accused wasproduced on 19.11.2005 in connection with “seizure of mother boardsand San Disks Compact Flashe of foreign origin …, “ but in thetranslated Tamil copy, which is available at page 103 of the paperbook, the same Officer has stated,“me;epa ehl;ilr; nrh;e;j th;j;jf mstpy; iff;fofhu fs;kw;Wk; ngl;lhpfs; ifg;ggw;wg;;gl;lJ ///// “It is true that the seized articles are mother boards and san diskscompact flashe. On the other hand, in the Tamil translated copy, thesame is mentioned as watches and batteries. First of all, this isonly a petition filed by the Revenue Intelligence Officer before theAdditional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai 8, forextension of remand. Even if we accept that there is discrepancy indescription of the seized articles, it cannot be claimed that becauseof the same, the detenu got confused and he was prevented from makingeffective representation.6. The learned senior counsel has also pointed out that in thetelegram addressed to the father of the detenu, which is available atpage 66 of the paper book, at the bottom of the same, it is statedthat arrest of the detenu was intimated to “husband Shri KaderMohideen”, it should be mentioned as father, and not husband. In theTamil version, which is available at page 67, the said mistake hasbeen rectified. Though the learned senior counsel for the petitionerhas highlighted the above discrepancy, as rightly pointed out by thelearned Additional Public Prosecutor, the same has not affected orprejudiced the detenu in any way. 7. In the case of A. Alangarasamy vs. State of Tamil Nadureported in AIR 1987 SC 1725, the Hon’ble Supreme Court whileconsidering similar discrepancies, viz., variation between Tamil andEnglish versions, has observed that,“5. ….The alleged difference between the twoversions is not consequential. The order ofdetention and grounds accompanied clearly speltout why the detenu was being detained. We arenot persuaded to hold that the two versions areso different as to cause any prejudice to thedetenu. … “8. It is also useful to refer the Division Bench decision ofthis Court dated 05.08.2003 made in HCP.No.2330 of 2002 (Sudaha vs.State of Tamil Nadu). In that case, after noticing similardiscrepancies in Tamil and English versions of certain document sentalong with the grounds of detention, the Division Bench has observedthat, https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ “5. It is not every minor error in the orderthat would justify the inference of nonapplication of mind. Venial mistakes and trivialerrors, typographical and clerical mistakes whichdo not impinge on the substance of the matter asalso the minor translation errors which do notaffect the substance cannot be regarded asconstituting sufficient basis to support aninference of non application of mind on the partof the detaining authority to the material whichhe was required to consider before forming hissubjective satisfaction regarding the need fordetention. “ 9. Though learned senior counsel for the petitioner has relied onthe case of Faritha vs. Union of India reported in 2005 M.L.J. (Crl.)388, an unreported decision of this Court dated 12.08.2004 inHCP.No.351 of 2004 (S. Seematti vs. State of Tamil Nadu and others),on going through the factual details, particularly the discrepanciesin the translation, we are satisfied that both the decisions are notapplicable to the case on hand. On the other hand, the judgments ofthe Supreme Court (AIR 1987 SC 1725 and the Division Bench of thisCourt dated 05.08.2003 (HCP.No.2330 of 2002), are directly on thepoint. 10. It is also brought to our notice that when the error ordiscrepancy in the translation was brought to the notice of theauthority, immediately, by way of reply it was informed to the detenuthat it is an inadvertent error and it does not in any way prejudicethe detenu in making representation. Further, the AdditionalSecretary to Government, Public Law and Order Department, Chennai-9in his counter affidavit has also explained that the errors pointedout are not intentional, but inadvertently occurred in the Tamiltranslation. The officer has also explained that those details havebeen correctly and properly explained to the detenu in Tamil, and healso acknowledged the same by putting his signature. In thosecircumstances, we are of the view that the mistakes in Tamiltranslation as pointed out by the learned senior counsel for thepetitioner are not viable and in no way prejudiced the detenu inmaking representation and on the ground of defective translation, thedetention order cannot be faulted with and accordingly, we reject thecontention of the learned senior counsel. 11. Equally, it cannot be claimed that there is non-applicationof mind on the part of the detaining authority. Further, it is notin dispute that in both the telegrams, the name of the detenu hasbeen clearly mentioned. We are satisfied that in view of the factthat all those details were properly explained to the detenu at the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ time of service and of the fact that the same are venial mistakes ortrivial errors, the same would not affect the detention order passedby the detaining authority.Under these circumstances, we do not find any valid ground forinterference; hence, this petition is dismissed.KhSd/Asst.Registrar/true copy/Sub Asst.RegistrarTo1. The Secretary to the Government State of Tamil Nadu Public (SC) Department Fort St. George, Chennai 600 009.2. The Secretary to the Government Union of India Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue (COFEPOSA Unit) New Delhi.3. The Superintendent of Central Prison Central Prison, Chennai 600 003.4. The Public Prosecutor High Court, Madras-104.+ one cc to M/S.P.Kumaresan, Advocate Sr.No.27679.PLI (CO)RSM/30.6.2006 H.C.P.No.2 of 2006