IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 8.1.2008 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.D.DINAKARAN AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.REGUPATHI H.C.P.No.1666 of 2007 N. Rani .. Petitioner Vs 1. 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 Constitution of India for issue of Writ of Habeas Corpus praying to set aside the order of detention dated 24.09.2007 made in order No.376/07 on the file of the 2nd respondent and direct the respondents herein to produce the detenu Ramachandran @ Kulla Son of Nagaraj before this Honourable Court and to set him at liberty. ----- For Petitioner : Mr.N.Duraisami for M/s.D.Kannan For Respondents : Mr.N.R.Elango Additional 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 of detention as against the son of the petitioner viz., Kulla @ Ramachandran, son of Nagaraj, as the said authority arrived 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 the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Forest Officers, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders, Sand Offenders, Slum Grabbers and Video Pirates Act, 1982 (Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982). 2. Challenging the abovesaid detention, the petitioner has come forward with the present Habeas Corpus Petition seeking a writ of habeas corpus to call for the records pertaining to the detention order passed against the detenu by the second respondent in Memo No.376/BDFGISSV/2007, dated 24.9.2007, set aside the same and to direct the respondents to produce the body of the detenu, now detained at Central Prison, Chennai before this Court and to set him at liberty. 3.1. The order of detention dated 24.9.2007 was passed on the basis of ground case in Crime No.561 of 2007 for alleged commission of offences under Sections 341, 336, 427, 385, 307 and 506(ii) IPC, complaint of which was lodged by one Marimuthu. According to the complainant, on 19.7.2007, while he was proceeding along with his friend Murugesan at the junction of Ethiraj Road and E.H.Road, the detenu herein and his associates Raji @ Rajkumar @ Vellai Raj and Munusamy @ Samy came there and wrongfully restrained them and demanded money. When they refused to pay money, the detenu and his associates threatened them at the knife point and the detenu attempted to cut Marimuthu over his head and Marimuthu warded off the attack with his right hand. However the knife fell over his right hand and caused bleeding injury to him. On hearing the hue and cry of Marimuthu, the public who were at the spot came for his rescue. On seeing the public, the detenu and his associates picked up cool drinks bottles from the nearby bunk shop and hurled the same against them. The bottles fell on the road side, broken into pieces and scattered all over the road. The public apprehending danger to their lives ran for safety, shop vendors closed the shops and the entire traffic came to standstill causing 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 detenu and his associates with the help of public and retrieved the knife. 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 as a ground case and finding that there are four adverse cases pending against the detenu viz., (i) Crime No.1545/2005 on the file of P4 Basin Bridge Police Station under Sections 302 and 380 IPC; (ii) Crime Nos.222 & 228/2007 on the file of P3 Vyasarpadi Police Station under Sections 147, 148, 341, 302, 323, 392 and 506(ii) IPC and (iii) Crime No.557/2007 on the file of P6 Kodungaiyur Police Station under Sections 341, 384 and 506 (ii) IPC and having satisfied that there is a compelling necessity to detain him in order to prevent him from indulging in the activities which are prejudicial to the maintenance of public order, ordered his detention branding him as a Goonda. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner challenges the impugned order of detention dated 24.9.2007 on the main ground of defective translation between the English and Tamil versions found at page Nos.429 and 430, which is a arrest report. He submits that in the English version in column 6 of the arrest report, 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 defective translation, the detenu was not in a position to make an effective representation and hence the order of detention vitiates. 5. Communicate is a strong word. It requires that sufficient knowledge of the basic facts consisting the grounds should be imparted effectively and fully to the detenu in writing in a language which he understands, so as to enable the detenu to make a purposeful and effective representation. Where the grounds are not properly translated, it would tantamount to not serving the grounds to the detenu and would thus vitiate the detention ex facie. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 6. In the instant case, as rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner, it is apparent on the face of record that there is a defective translation in the arrest report furnished to the detenu in Tamil version, as to the remanding of the accused to judicial custody. In the English version, it is stated that the detenu was sent to remand, whereas in the Tamil version, it is stated that he is remanded to judicial custody. Failure to furnish the properly translated version of the arrest report would amount to denial of the right of being communicated the grounds and of being afforded the opportunity of making an effective representation against the order of detention. Hence, the order of detention is vitiated. Accordingly, the order of detention dated 24.9.2007 is set aside and the habeas corpus petition is allowed. The detenu Kulla @ Ramachandran is directed to be set at liberty forthwith unless his presence is required in connection with any other case. ATR Sd/ Asst. Registrar /true copy/ Sub Asst.Registrar To: 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 1337 RSV (co) sg 01/02/08 H.C.P.No.1666 of 2007 8.1.2008 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/