TMI Blog1999 (1) TMI 538X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s indulging in activities prejudicial to the maintenance of public health and public order. He referred to four cases filed under Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act, 1937 in which she was found guilty and was fined, ₹ 250 in two cases and ₹ 350 in two cases. On the day when she was served with the impugned order of detention, she was in judicial remand in connection with, a case filed under Sections 4(1)(1) and 4(1-A) of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act, 1937 which was filed on the allegation that she was selling liquid in bottles which contained chloral hydrate, 99.2 mg% weight/volume, which was injurious to the health of the consumers. The only ground urged before us by Mr. K.K. Mani, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant, is that the detenue was denied the right to make effective representation because the order dated 5.4.1998 remanding the detenue to judicial custody relied upon by the second respondent in the grounds of detention was passed in English but the Tamil version of that document was not supplied to her even though she specifi-cally demanded for the same as she did not know English at all. Mr. N. Natarajan, learned senior counsel for t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e right of being communicated the grounds and of being afforded the oppor-tunity of making an effective representation against the order. But it would not be so where the document merely finds a reference in the order of detention or among the grounds thereof. In such a case, the detenue's complaint of non-supply of document has to be supported by prejudice caused to him in making an effective representation. What applies to a document, would equally apply to furnishing translated copy of the docu-ment in the language known to and understood by the detenue, should the document be in a different language. In Chaju Ram v. The State of Jammu Kashmir, [1970] 1 SCC 536, the order of detention was challenged on the ground, inter alia, that the detenue was not explained of the grounds of his detention in the language known to him and, therefore, he was deprived of his right of making a representation. This court held that when dealing with a detenue who could not read and understand English or any language at all that the grounds of detention should be explained to him as early as possible in the language he understood so that he could avail himself of the statutory right of maki ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mmunication of the grounds of detention in English and subsequently in Hindi was valid and that as the gist of the annexures which were in Malayalam, had been stated in the grounds of detention, so the detention was not vitiated. In the instant case there is no such finding of the detaining authority about detenue not knowing English. Mentioning about the order of remand in the grounds, in our view, does not amount to giving the gist of that document. In Madan Lal Anand v. Union of India, AIR (1990) SC 176, one of the grounds of challenge to the order of detention was non-supply of copies of documents. The detaining authority relied upon three civil miscellaneous applications filed in a civil revision petition. Copies of the miscellaneous petitions were supplied to the detenue but the copy of the civil revision petition in which the miscellaneous petitions were filed, was not furnished. It was observed that mentioning of civil revision petition in the grounds of detention was merely to identify the miscellaneous applications and having regard to the facts and circumstances of that case the detenue was not prejudiced due to non-supply of the copies of the documents to him and fur ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the remand order in Tamil when she was served with the order of detention and the grounds of detention. It is not disputed that the detenu was supplied with Tamil translation of the order, grounds and the documents. Grievance, however, is that she was not supplied with the Tamil translation of the remand order. The detenu was arrested on April 5, 1998 under Section 4(l)(i) and Section 4(1)(A) of the Tamil Nadu prohibition Act, 1937. She was produced before the Magistrate on the same day and was remanded till April 17, 1998. In the narration of events in the grounds of detention it is stated that the detenue was produced for remand before the Judicial Magistrate Thirukalukundam on 5.4.98 on the same day and she was ordered to be remanded till 17.4.98 and she was lodged in Special Prison for Women Vellore . Detaining authority in the grounds then mentions : I am aware that Thirumathi Lakshmi is in remand and there is imminent possibility that she may come out on bail for the offence under section 4(l)(i) 4(1-A) Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act, 1937 by filing bail applica-tion in the court. I am also aware that in similar cases accused are enlarged on bail by the same court or the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... elf as no complaint of ill-treatment . Hence the above said endorsement of the Learned Trial Magistrate in the remand order will clearly show and prove that the detenue under-stood the proceedings before the Trial Court at the time of remand and she understood the same also. Hence the non furnishing the copy of the remand order in Tamil Language to the detenue will not cause any prejudice to the detenu in making an effective representation. It is further humbly submitted that the detenue herself appeared before the Advisory Board personally. In the representation dated 18.5.98 given before the Advisory Board she has not stated that she did not understand the contents of the documents namely the remand order dated 5.4.98. She has not made any grievance even before the honourable advisory Board. Hence it has to be presumed that she knew very well that she was remanded till 17.4.98 and she has not made any complaint against the police at the time of remand. Hence non furnishing of the copy of the remand order in Tamil will not cause any prejudice to the detenue. The detenue did not choose to file any rejoinder to the counter affidavit filed by the detaining authority though oppor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1974. I am tempted to quote the following observations in the judgment (see paras 82 and 83) :- Preventive detention unlike punitive detention which is to punish for the wrong done, is to protect the society by preventing wrong being done. Though such powers must be very cautiously exercised not to undermine the fundamental freedoms guaranted to our people, the procedural safeguards have to be ensured that, yet these must be looked at from a pragmatic and commonsense point of view. The exercise of the power of preventive detention must be strictly within the safeguards provided. We are governed by the Constitution and our Constitution embodies a particular philosophy of government and a way of life and that necessarily requires understanding between those who exercise powers and the people over whom or in respect of whom such power is exercised. The purpose of exercise of all such powers by the Government must be to promote common well-being and must be to subserve the common good. It is necessary to protect therefore the individual rights insofar as practicable which are not inconsis-tent with the security and well-being of the society. Grant of power imposes limitation on the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
