Siva vs The State Of Tamil Nadu Rep on 6 February, 2006

Madras High Court
Siva vs The State Of Tamil Nadu Rep on 6 February, 2006
       

  

  

 
 
 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS           

DATED: 06/02/2006  

CORAM   

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P. SATHASIVAM         
AND  
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.A.K. SAMPATH KUMAR          

HCP. No.1104 of 2005  

Siva                                   .. Petitioner

-Vs-

1. The State of Tamil Nadu rep.
   by its Secretary to Government
   Prohibition and Excise Department
   Fort St. George
   Chennai 9.

2. The Commissioner of Police 
   Greater Chennai, Egmore 
   Chennai.                                             .. Respondents

                Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of  India
praying for issuance of writ of habeas corpus as stated therein.

For petitioner :Ms.  A.  Vasanthi

For respondents :Mr.  Abudukumar Rajarathinam  
                Government Advocate (Crl.side)


:ORDER  

(ORDER OF THE COURT WAS MADE BY P. SATHASIVAM,J.)

The petitioner by name Siva, who was detained as Goonda under
Section 3(1) of the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of
Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Forest Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic
Offenders, Slum Grabbers and Video Pirates Act, 1982 (in short ” Tamil Nadu
Act 14 of 1982″), by the detention order of the second respondent made in Memo
No.450/2005 dated 09.09.2005, challenges the same in this petition.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as
learned Government Advocate for the respondents.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner by taking us
through certain pages of English version of the grounds of detention and the
Tamil version of the grounds of detention contended that in view of variation
/ defective translation in several aspects, the ultimate detention order
passed by the detaining authority is liable to be quashed. In support of his
above contention learned counsel submitted that in para 3 of the English
version of the grounds of detention though it is stated that “Tr. Masilamani
warded off the attack with his left hand. However, the knife fell over his
left hand and caused bleeding injury, ” in the Tamil version it is stated that
the said Masilamani warded off the attack with his right hand. However, even
according to the learned counsel, in the next line it has been correctly
stated that the knife fell over his left hand, which caused bleeding injury.
In such circumstances, inasmuch as it has been correctly stated both in
English and Tamil version of the grounds of detention relating to causing
injury on his left hand, we are of the view that the said discrepancy is not a
material one.

4. The learned counsel also pointed out that though in the
same paragraph it is stated that, “Taking advantage of the panic situation Tr.
Siva threatened the police personnel by uttering “vd;id gpof;f vtdhtJ fpl;l
te;jhy; bfhy;yhky; tplkhl;nld;”, in the Tamil version, reference to police has
not been mentioned. Here again, if we read the entire paragraph, though there
is omission to mention that Siva threatened the “police personnel”, it is not
in dispute that his act had caused panic in the mind of the public. Hence, we
are of the view that the omission to mention police personnel is not of vital
as claimed.

5. By drawing our attention to page Nos.219 and 221 of the
booklet, which are English and Tamil version of the remand order dated 25.08
.2005 respectively of XIII Metropolitan Magistrate, would submit that here
again there is a variation in the Tamil version of the said order. We
verified both English and Tamil version of the order of remand dated
25.08.2005. Though in the English version the learned Magistrate has stated
that no complaints against police, when the same is translated in Tamil, it is
stated that, “fhty; Jiwf;F vjpuhf g[fhh; VJk; bjhptpf;ftpy;iy/” We are
satisfied that what is stated in Tamil version conveys the same meaning as
stated in the English version of the remand order. We are of the view that
none of the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner merit
acceptance by this Court. We are also satisfied that because of the minor
defects, the detenu has not lost anything, on the other hand he made a
representation questioning the order of detention and the same was considered
and rejected. Accordingly, we do not find any valid ground for interference.
Hence, this petition is dismissed.

Index:Yes
Internet:Yes

Kh

To

1. The Secretary to Government
Prohibition and Excise Department
Fort St. George
Chennai 9.

2. The Commissioner of Police
Greater Chennai
Egmore, Chennai 600 008.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes:

<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

* Copy This Password *

* Type Or Paste Password Here *