Sony John @ Sony @ Jegan vs The Commissioner of Police and The Secretary to Government Prohibition and Excise Department

P. Sathasivam, J.—The petitioner, by name, Sony John @ Sony @ Jegan, challenges the order of detention dated 07.11.2005, detaining

him as ""Immoral Traffic Offender"" u/s 3(1) of the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Forest

Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders and Slum Grabbers Act, 1982 (in short ""Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982"").

Heard both sides.

The learned counsel for the petitioner after taking us through the grounds of detention and all other connected materials, at the foremost,

submitted that the detention order is liable to be quashed on the ground of non-application of mind on the part of the Detaining authority. For that,

he brought to our notice that the Detaining authority has relied on the petition of one Venkatesh, which was given on 22.10.2005, well prior to the

occurrence in the alleged ground case, i.e., on 31.10.2005 and hence, there is non-application of mind on the part of the Detaining authority.

In the light of the said contention, we verified the petition of Venkatesh, which is available at page 115 of the Paper Book. The said petition is

un-dated, however, the rubber stamp seal of the Office of the Inspector of Police, Chinthadripet, Chennai 600 002, shows that the said petition

was received by the Inspector on 22.10.2005. We also verified the relevant passage in pagraraph 3 of the detention order, which shows that the

said petition was handed over ""during the course of investigation"". According to the learned counsel, though the petition of Venkatesh was received

by the Inspector of Police on 2 2.10.2005, i.e., prior to the alleged occurrence in the ground case said to have taken place on 31.10.2005, the

Detaining authority has not applied his mind while considering the petition of said Venkatesh. We are unable to accept the said contention, since

the grounds of detention show that the detenu had four prior cases, starting from the year 2003 and the last adverse case is said to have taken

place on 2 1.11.2004. Merely because the detaining authority has stated that the said Venkatesh lodged a petition against the detenu during the

course of investigation, it cannot be claimed that the Detaining authority has not applied his mind. Taking note of the involvement of the detenu in

other four cases and all those cases are still pending, we are of the view that the Detaining authority while passing the impugned order of detention

has only referred to the petition of Venkatesh and merely because he has stated that the same was presented during the course of investigation, the

same cannot be faulted with and in any way, it would not affect the detention order passed by him.

The learned counsel for the petitioner by drawing our attention to para 4 of the grounds of detention contended that though in the English version

of the grounds the detaining authority has referred to the pendency of two bail applications, i.e., one before the 17th Metropolitan Magistrate,

Saidapet, Chennai and another before the Prl. Sessions Court, Chennai, in the translated Tamil version it is mentioned as if those applications are

pending before the Sessions Court and High Court. By pointing out the same, the learned counsel contended that inasmuch as the detenu is not

conversant with English language, he was not able to make an effective representation, which vitiates the impugned detention order passed by the

Detaining authority.

In the light of the said contention, we verified paragraph 4 of the English and Tamil versions of grounds of detention. It is true that in English

version of the grounds it has been stated that two bail applications are pending before 17th Metropolitan Magistrate and Prl. Sessions Court,

whereas in the Tamil version it is stated as. It is to be noted that in the Tamil version of the same paragraph it is stated that two bail application i.e.,

Crl.MP.No. 6265 of 2005 on the file of 17th Metropolitan Magistrate and Crl.M.P.No. 9551 of 2005 before the Prl. Sessions Court, Chennai

are pending. However, in the later part, while considering the fact that the said Courts, viz., 17th Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai and

Principal Sessions Judge, Chennai are usually granting bails in the case of this nature, the same has not been correctly stated in the Tamil version.

We are of the view that in the light of the fact that even in the grounds of detention in Tamil, the detaining authority has correctly stated with

reference to the pendency of bail applications, one before 17th Metropolitan Magistrate and another before the Prl. Sessions Court, Chennai, we

are satisfied that the detenu is not prejudiced in making an effective representation. As a matter of fact, two representations have been made with

reference to his detention order and both the representations were duly considered and rejected by the Government. In such circumstances, merely

because there is a trivial error in Tamil translation of the grounds of detention, the detention order cannot be sought to be quashed.

Under these circumstances, we do not find any valid ground for interference; hence, this petition fails and the same is dismissed.