AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
S. Jagadeesan, J.—The wife of the detenu, has filed this petition challenging the order of the detention of her husband Pandiyan on the
ground that he is a ''Goonda'' as defined u/s 2(f) of the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982. It is unnecessary to elaborate the facts with regard to the
ground case or adverse case in view of the only point urged by learned Senior counsel for the petitioner that there is difference between the English
version of the order of detention and the Tamil version of the order of detention and that itself vitiates the order of detention. The relevant portion
of the order of detention, for the purpose of disposal of the writ petition, is the following:
Thiru Pandiyan @ Othakkal Pandiyan is informed that he has a right to make representation in writing against the order in which he is kept in
detention. If he wished to make such representation he should address it to the Secretary to Government. Prohibition and Excise Department
Chennai-9 and forward it through the Superintendent of Prison in which he is confined as expeditiously as possible. He is further informed that he
has the right to make representation to the Chairman, Advisory Board, No. 26, Greenways Road, Sudar Building, Chennai-28 through the
Superintendent of the concerned Central Prison. Any representation that is made by him will be duly considered by the Government and will also
be placed before the Advisory Board for consideration of his case u/s 10 of the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Boot loggers.
Drug offenders, Forest Offenders, Immoral Traffic Offenders and Slum Grabbers Act 1982 (Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982). He is informed that he
is entitled to be heard in person by the Board.
The Tamil version which forms the base for the argument is as follows:
The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that in the English version, it is clearly stated that the detenu has the right to make
representation to the Chairman Advisory Board, through the Superintendent of concerned Central Prison. Any representation that is made by him
will be duly considered by the Government and will also be placed before the Advisory Board for consideration of his case u/s 10 of the Tamil
Nadu Act 14 of 1982, whereas in Tamil version, it has been stated that the detenu has got a right to make the representation to the Advisory
Board, which will be duly considered by the Government. The detenu''s case will be placed before the Advisory Board u/s 10 of the Tamil Nadu
Act 14 of 1982. The failure to mention in the Tamil version to the effect that the detenu''s representation will be placed before the Advisory Board
would make it clear that there is discrepancy in the translation and the detenu has not been furnished with true version of translation. Hence the
order is vitiated. In fact, the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, relied upon a recent Judgment of tins Court reported in 1999 (IT) CTC. 175
(Devarajan v. State) 1999 LW(Crl) 339 We have carefully considered the Judgment relied upon by learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner
wherein the Tamil version of the order of detention is as follows:
In the Tamil version of the case relied upon by learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner the sentence that either the representation of the case of
the detenu will be placed before the Advisory Board is totally missing. On that ground the Division Bench has held mat the Tamil Version is not in
conformity with the English version and gave the benefit. So far as the case in hand is concerned it has been categorically stated that the case of the
detenu will be placed before the Advisory Board for consideration in accordance with Section 10 of the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982.
Learned Additional Public Prosecutor relied upon an unreported Order of this Court in H.C.P. No. 679 of 1998 dated 16.10.1998 Chandra v.
State wherein in an identical facts learned Judges have held as follows:
The grievance of the learned advocate for the petitioner was that any representation that is made by him will be duly considered by the
Government and will also be placed before the Advisory'' Board for consideration of his case has not been translated in the Tamil version. We
have been taken to the Tamil version furnished to the detenu. Even in the Tamil version, we can gather that this fact has been mentioned, though not
in the form given in the English version, the meaning of the Tamil version that any representation that is made by him will be duly considered by the
Government and he has got right to make a representation before the Advisory Board and if he wants to have a hearing he can make a mention
before the authority. A reading of the Tamil version will go to show that all those which are mentioned in English have been mentioned even in the
Tamil version. Hence, we cannot accede to the arguments advanced by the learned advocate on this point.
The principles laid down by a Division Bench of this Court in H.C.P. No. 679 of 1998 is that it is sufficient to inform the detenu though he has
right to make a representation before the Advisory Board and if he wants both he can made a mention before the authority. In fact, this Judgment
has been confirmed by the Supreme Court since the SLP preferred against the same was dismissed by the Apex Court in SLP No. 3830 of 1998
dated 25.1.1999. Even though the dismissal order at the admission stage cannot be taken as a precedent, but the fact remains that the principles
laid down by this Court, in H.C.P. No. 679 of 1998 had been accepted and confirmed by the dismissal of the above S.L.P.
Yet another unreported order of this Court relied upon by learned Additional Public Prosecutor is H.C.P. No. 1206 of 1997, dated 30.4.1998
wherein also the Division Bench consisting of C. Shivappa, J and A. Ramamurthi, J. have held that it is sufficient if the detenu had been informed
that the matter will be referred to the Advisory Board in accordance with Section 10 of the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982. The relevant portion of
the order is as follows:
No doubt in the English version, it is stated that the representation will be duly considered by the Government and will also be placed before the
Advisory Board for consideration of his case u/s 10. It is pertinent to point out that there is a reference about the Advisory Board and also section
10 of Act 14 of 1982. There is no dispute that Section 10 relates to reference to the Advisory Board. In fact, Section 10 has been introduced only
for the purpose of placing the paper before the Advisory Board constituted u/s 9. When Section 10 has been specifically made mention in the
Tamil version. It is not necessary that the placing of the paper also should be made mention of. The petitioner had already been forewarned and
informed about section 10 even in the Tamil version. We are of the view that when Section 10 has been made mention not only in the English
version but also in the Tamil version, as it relates to reference to the Advisory Board no prejudice is caused to the petitioner by the omission of
placing the paper before the Advisory Board in the Tamil version, if section 10 has not been incorporated, then there would be some force in the
contention of the learned counsel. Act 14 of 1982 has been passed only as preventive measure and one cannot expect that the translation should
be in the manner in which they want. When once it is admitted that section 10 relates to reference to the Advisory Board, we are unable to accept
the contention of the learned counsel and this will not affect the case of the respondent in any way.
In this case learned Judges have also referred to H.C.P. No. 1184 of 1979 wherein the Division Bench of this Court has held that the non-
mentioning of the fact that the representation of the detenu will be placed before the Advisory Board for consideration would vitiate the order. In
fact in H.C.P. No. 1184 of 1979 there is nothing on record to show that either the Tamil version of the detention order refers or mentions Section
10 of the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982 or whether there is any discrepancy in the translation as pointed out in this case. A perusal of the judgment
clearly reveals that there is conspicuous absence of the sentence that the representation of the detenu will be placed before the Advisory Board
which makes all the difference. Unfortunately, the Order in H.C.P. No. 1206 of 1997 was not placed before the Division Bench which heard the
case reported in 1999 (IT) C.T.C.175 , cited supra. Though the Additional Public Prosecutor has drawn our attention of the said order of the
Division Bench reported in H.C.P. No. 679 of 1998; the learned Judges have not discussed the same. However, the learned Judges have
proceeded on the basis that there is a patent omission of sentence and considered whether the Tamil translation contains the true and correct
version of the English version. Since the particular sentence was omitted to be mentioned in the Tamil version, the learned Judges allowed the
petition and hence on the facts of the case that the principles laid down in 1999 (IT) C.T.C. 175 cited supra, will not be helpful for the petitioner
for the release of the detenu. On the other hand the principles laid down in both the unreported order in H.C.P. Nos. 679 of 1998 as well as 1206
of 1997 by different Benches of this Court would be applicable for the facts of this case. Hence accepting the views taken by those two Division
Benches, we are of the view that there are no merits in the H.C.P. and accordingly the same is dismissed.