VELLATHAI Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner herein challenges an order dated 31-5-1999 passed by the District Magistrate and District Collector, Virudhunagar, under the provisions of Section 3(2) of the National Security Act, directing the detention of one Veerakumar, son of Natarajan. The petitioner is the mother of the detenu. There are number of grounds raised in support of the said order and it is suggested that there were two cases pending against the petitioner both involving the offences under Sections 147, 148 and 302, I.P.C. all these cases were due to the enmity between two sectors of Schedule Castes i.e., Pallar Community and Parayar Community. It is then suggested that the above Criminal Cases were the result of the detenu belonging to one rival faction and taking active part and there are number of other reasons stated which would not be relevant here. The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner first urged that there is a discrepancy in between the Tamil version and English version more particularly in respect of paragraph 8. He points out that in paragraph 8, it is stated that the Inspector of Police examined the witnesses viz., Thavalumperumal, V. K. Sathaiyamurthy, Chinnasamy, Ganesan, Chinnakali, Soosai, Yesappan, Pandian, Ravi, residents of in and around W. Pudupatti. He further points out that there was a difference in the Tamil version in respect of one word i.e., "Soosai". We have seen the Tamil version ourselves. We are of the clear opinion that such a discrepancy is of no consequence. In paragraph 8 of Tamil version, in place of the word (Vernacular matter omitted-Ed.), the word (Vernacular matter omitted-Ed.) is written.

(2.) It is pointed out by the learned Public prosecutor that the statement of the said Soosai is supplied to the detenu vide : page 76 of the Paper Book. The learned Public Prosecutor, therefore, says that at the most the mention of name (Vernacular matter omitted-Ed.), in Tamil version might be a spelling mistake, but the detenu has not shown his right to represent effectively has been affected because of such a mistake. Considering the over all circumstances, we are of the opinion that the contention that the word "Soosai" appearing in English version and the word (Vernacular matter omitted-Ed.) appearing in Tamil version would make much of difference, would be of any consequence. The contentions is, therefore, incorrect and it cannot be accepted.

(3.) The learned Counsel for the petitioner then pointed out that a representation dated 23-7-1993 was sent to the Central Government which reached the Central Government on 6-8-1999. It is pointed out that the Central Government rejected the same on 13-8-1999. The learned Counsel feels that this is a delayed consideration by the Central Government. According to us, there cannot be any delay in the consideration by the Central Government of the representation of the detenu particularly which has been served seven days from the receipt of the representation by the State Government. The contention of the learned Counsel, therefore, must be rejected.