Allowed

Mumtaj v. the State of Tamil Nadu

Madras HC9 Jun 2014HCP/2237/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court quashed a detention order under Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982 issued to the wife's husband. The Court held that a discrepancy between the English and Tamil versions of the order, which altered the factual inference regarding bail prospects, deprived the detenu of the right to make effective representations under Article 22(5).

What did the court decide?

The impugned detention order is quashed, and the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed. The detenu is ordered to be set at liberty.

Mumtaj Vs the State of Tamil Nadu — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2014)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

Dated: 09.06.2014

¶3

Coram:

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE V.DHANAPALAN and

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE G.CHOCKALINGAM

¶6

H.C.P.No.2237 of 2013

¶7

Mumtaj ... Petitioner

¶8

-vs-

¶9

The State of Tamil Nadu, rep. by its Secretary to Government, Prohibition and Excise Department (Home), Chennai 600 009.

¶10

Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a writ of Habeas Corpus, to call for the records relating to the detenu's detention order passed by the 2^nd respondent in No.923/BDFGISSV/2013 dated 07.09.2013 and set aside the same and produce the detenu KHADHAR RAZOOL, S/o.Khadhar Ibrahim, M/a 43 years (Goonda) now confined in Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai, before this Court and set him at liberty.

¶11

(Order of the Court was made by V.Dhanapalan,J.) The petitioner is the wife of the detenu. The detenu has been branded as a "Goonda" under the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982 and detained under the order of the 2^nd respondent passed in Memo No.923/BDFGISSV/2013, dated 07.09.2013.

¶12

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶13

2. The de	tenu c	ame to adverse no	tice in	the followingcases:-
Sl.No. Police	Stati	on and Crime No.		Sections of Law
1. CCB.X.	Crime	No.243/2012	51 r/w 1957	63 of Copy Right Act and 292(2)(a) IPC
2. CCB.X.	Crime	No.244/2012	51 r/w 1957	63 of Copy Right Act, and 292(2)(a) IPC.
3. CCB.X.	Crime	No.245/2012	51 r/w	63 of Copy Right Act, 1957

¶14

The ground case alleged against the detenu is one registered on 03.09.2013 by the Inspector of Police, Team X, Video Piracy Cell, Central Crime Branch, Chennai Police in Crime No.349/2013 for offences under Sections 52(A), 68(A), 51 r/w 63 & 65 of Copyright Act, 1957 and 292(2)(a) IPC.

¶15

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, 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.

¶16

We have heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor on the above submission. 5. For better appreciation of the case, relevant portion of the English and Tamil version of the detention order is extracted herein. “3. ... In a similar case registered u/s 51 r/w 63 Copyright Act, 1957 and 292(2)(a) IPC registered in Central Crime Branch Cr.No.75/2012 bail was granted by the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Egmore, Chennai. Hence, I infer that there is very likely of his coming out on bail in Central Crime Branch X Cr.No.349/2013, since in similar cases bails are granted by the courts after the lapse of time. ...''

¶17

",J nghd;w gjpg;g[hpik rl;lk; 1957 gphpt[fs; 51 c/, 63 kw;Wk; ,jr 292(2) (V) gphptpd; fPH; gjpt[ kj;jpa Fw;wg; gphpt[ Fw;w vz; 75/2012 tHf;bfhd;wpy; jiyik bgUefu Fw;wtpay; eLth; ePjpkd;wj;jpy; $hkPd; tH';fg;gl;Ls;sjhYk;. ,J nghd;w tHf;Ffspy; ePjpkd;w';fspy; rpy fhyk; fHpj;J $hkPd; tH';fg;gLtjhYk;. mth; brd;id fhty;. kj;jpa Fw;wg;gphpt[. gj;jhk; mzp vf;!; Fw;w vz;/349/2013f;fhf $hkPd; nfhUk;

¶18

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶19

kDitj; jhf;fy; bra;J mnj nghy; $hkPdpy; btspna tu cz;ikahd rhj;jpaf;TW cs;sJ vd;Wk; ehd; fUJfpnwd;/ "

¶20

On verification of the English and Tamil version of the detention order, it is seen that the detaining authority, in the English version, while placing reliance on the similar case consideration, has inferred that the detenu is likely to come out on bail in Central Crime Branch Crime No.349/2013; whereas, in the Tamil version, it is inferred that the detenu will file a bail application in Central Crime Branch Crime No.349/2013 and come out on bail. When, in the English version, it is inferred that the detenu will come out on bail in Crime No.349/2013, in the Tamil version, it is translated such that the detenu will file a bail application to come out on bail. Thus, when there is discrepancy between English and Tamil versions, the opportunity of making effective representation upon knowledge of the factual situation stands denied to the detenu and the same, which amounts to infringement of right ensured under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India, would vitiate the order of detention.

¶21

For the aforesaid reason, the impugned detention order passed by the 2^nd respondent, detaining the detenu, namely, KADHAR RAZOOL made in BDFGISSV No.923/2013 dated 07.09.2013, is quashed and the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed. The above named detenu is ordered to be set at liberty forthwith, unless his custody is required in connection with any other case.

¶22

Sd/Asst. Registrar[CS-IV] DT/-11.7.2014. /True Copy/

¶23

Sub Asst. Registrar.

¶24

abe To :

¶25

The Secretary to Government, Government of Tamil Nadu, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Chennai 600 009.

¶26

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶27

The Commissioner of Police,
Greater Chennai,
Egmore, Chennai - 600 008.
3.The Superintendent,
Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai-66
4.The Joint Secretary to Government
Public (Law and order)
Fort. St. George,
Chennai 600 009.
5. The Public Prosecutor
High Court, Madras.
H.C.P.No.2337 of 2013
ppa(co)
gkg.14.7.2014

¶28

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

Mumtaj v. the State of Tamil Nadu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mumtaj v. the State of Tamil Nadu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Uthiravel @ Ukkiravel Vs the Inspector of Police

Vs

Dhanam Vs the State of Tamilnadu

P.Rani Vs the State of Tamilnadu

Suganthi Vs the Secretary to Government

Manavaruthal Vs the State of Tamil Nadu