Allowed

Vennila v. the State of Tamil Nadu

Madras HC17 Jun 2014HCP/2857/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order quashed a detention order under Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982 due to a contradiction between English and Vernacular translations of a remand extension order, which deprived the detenu of the right to effective representation under Article 22(5).

What did the court decide?

The impugned detention order is quashed and the detenu is ordered to be set at liberty forthwith unless custody is required for any other case.

Vennila Vs the State of Tamil Nadu — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Madras HC (2014)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

Dated :17.06.2014

¶3

Coram:

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE V.DHANAPALAN and

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE G.CHOCKALINGAM

¶6

H.C.P.No.2857 of 2013

¶7

Vennila

¶8

... Petitioner

¶9

vs -

¶10

The State of Tamilnadu, rep. by its Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Secretariat, Chennai - 600 009.

¶11

The Commissioner of Police, Egmore, Chennai-600 008. ... Respondents

¶12

Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a writ of Habeas Corpus, calling for the entire records from the 2^nd respondent in connection with Memo No.987/BDFGISSV/2013, dated 13.09.2013 and quash the same and produce the petitioner's son Jawahar, S/o. Ramesh, aged about 23 years now detained in Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai-600 066 under the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982 before this Court and set him at liberty and quash the detention order.

¶13

For Petitioner : Mr.P.K.Ilavarasan For Respondents : Mr.P.Govindarajan Addl. Public Prosecutor

¶14

O R D E R

¶15

(Order of the Court was made by V.Dhanapalan,J.)

¶16

The petitioner is the mother of 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.987/BDFGISSV/2013, dated 13.09.2013.

¶17

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

¶18

The detenu came to adverse notice in the following cases:-

¶19

Sl.No	Police Station and Crime No.	Sections of Law
1.	Ponneri P.S. Cr.No.294/2012	147, 148, 341, 294(b), 324, 506(ii) IPC r/w 307 & 436 IPC.
2.	Ponneri P.S. Cr.No.487/2012	399 IPC
3.	Ponneri P.S. Cr.No.691/2012	294(b), 323, 324, 506(ii) IPC.
4.	Ponneri P.S. Cr.No.704/2012	457, 380 IPC.

¶20

The ground case alleged against the detenu is one registered on 28.08.2013 by the Inspector of Police, K-5 Peravallore Police Station in Crime No.1822/2013 for the offences under Sections 341, 392, 397, 336 and 506(ii) IPC.

¶21

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 remand extension order dated 12.09.2013 annexed in the booklet, 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.

¶22

We have heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor on the above submission.

¶23

A careful scrutiny of the booklet and a comparison of the English version of the remand extension order dated 12.09.2013 annexed in Page No.76 of the booklet with the Vernacular version annexed in page 77 of the booklet would reveal some defects in translation. The English version of the remand extension order reads thus:

¶24

"Accused not seen on 12.09.13 Through Video Conference. Next Hearing date 26.09.13.”

¶25

The Vernacular version reads thus:

¶26

"vjphpia 12/09/2013 md;W fhbzhsp K:yk; ghh;f;f , aytpy;iy/ 26/09/2013 tiu milg;g[f;fhty; ePl;og;g [ bra;ag;gl;lhh;/"

¶27

On verification of the English and Vernacular version of the remand extension order found in pages 76 and 77 of the booklet, it is seen that there is contradiction in translation. In the

¶28

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

¶29

English version, it is stated that 'Next Hearing date 26.09.13.' But, in the Vernacular version, it is stated that 'the remand date is extended till 26.09.2013'. Thus, when there is discrepancy between English and Vernacular 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.

¶30

For the aforesaid reason, the impugned detention order passed by the 2^nd respondent, detaining the detenu, namely, Jawahar, S/o. Ramesh made in Memo No.987/BDFGISSV/2013, dated 13.09.2013, is quashed and the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed. The above named detenu, who is detained at the Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai, is ordered to be set at liberty forthwith, unless his custody is required in connection with any other case.

¶31

-s/d-
Assistant Registrar (CS-IV)
Dated:
True Copy
Sub-Assistant Registrar
To
1. The Secretary to Government,
The State of Tamilnadu,
Home, Prohibition and Excise Department,
Secretariat, Chennai - 600 009.
2. The Commissioner of Police,
Egmore, Chennai-600 008.
3. The Superintendent,
Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai.
4. The Joint Secretary to Govt.,
Public (Law & Order)
Fort St.George, Chennai.
5. The Public Prosecutor
High Court, Madras.
rj(co)
krd 22.7.14
Order in
H.C.P.No.2857 of 2013

¶32

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

Vennila v. the State of Tamil Nadu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vennila 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

T.v.Sashindran Vs the Commissioner of Police

C.Gokulakrishnan Vs the State of Tamil Nadu

Usha Vs the Secretary to the

S.Josphin Mary Vs the State of Tamil Nadu

Mrs.Umarani Vs the Principal Secretary to

B.Vedhamani Vs the State of Tamil Nadu