Judgment:
Vishnu Sahai, J.
1. Through this writ petition preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the Petitioner, who describes himself as the father of the detenu Ramesh Ganpat Panchal, has impugned the order dated 8th June, 2001, passed by the 2nd respondent Mr. M.N. Singh, Commissioner of Police Brihan Mumbai, detaining the detenu under Sub-section (1) of Section (3) of the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords, Bootleggers, Drug Offenders and Dangerous Persons Act, 1981 (No. LV. of 1981) (hereinafter referred to as the M.P.D.A. Act).
The detention order along with the grounds of detention, which are also dated 8th June, 2001 was served on the detenu on 11th June, 2001 and their true copies have been annexed to this petition.
2. A perusal of the grounds of detention would show that the impugned order is founded on CR, namely, CR No. 112/2001, under Section 34 and 326 of the Indian Penal Code read with 4 and 25 of the Arms Act, registered on the basis of a complaint, dated 14.3.2001, lodged by Premkumar Jaiswal at Malad Police Station and in camera statements of two witnesses, namely, 'A' and 'B', which were recorded on 25.4.2001.
Since in our view, a reference to the prejudicial activities of the detenu contained in the grounds of detention is not necessary for adjudication of ground 12 (VII) pleaded in the petition, on which ground alone, in our judgment, this petition deserves to succeed, we are not adverting to them.
3. In ground 12(VII) number of grounds including the ground that since Marathi translation of documents supplied to the detenu is not a true and faithful translation of the original, detenu's fundamental right of making an effective representation, guaranteed under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India, was impaired, are contained.
Two instances have been specifically set forth, namely, (a) that whereas the original injury report of the victim, Premkumar Jaiswal, which is in English shows that the first injury sustained by him was an incised wound over (1) popliteal region 20cm. x 5cm., but in the Marathi translation, the said injury has been shown to have been suffered by the victim on the head; (b) whereas in the original in-camera statement of witness 'B', recorded In English, the averment is that the detenu's associate Ramesh Salvi, after resting a Choppar on the chest of the witness, and abusing him, asked him to hand over Rs. 2000/-, in the Marathi translation, in place of Rs. 2000/ -, the amount mentioned is Rs. 1000/-.
The contention of Mr. Chopra, learned Counsel for the petitioner is that on account of the aforesaid discrepancies in translation, the detenu could have been confused or misled in exercising his fundamental right, guaranteed to him by Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India, of making an effective and purposeful representation.
4. Ground No. 12 (VII) has been replied to in paragraph 16 of the return of the Detaining Authority. Reply therein, in respect of the aforesaid discrepancies in translation is as under:
The copy of the medical certificate translated in Marathi, which was furnished to the detenu contains a true, correct and faithful translation. The medical certificate has not been referred to and relied upon by him in the grounds of detention and there is not even a passing reference to the said medical certificate in the grounds of detention and, consequently, the detenu's right to make an effective and purposeful representation under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India was not impaired. So far as the other infirmity, namely, whereas in, in camera statement of witness 'B' in English, the amount is mentioned is Rs. 2000/- but in Marathi translation it is mentioned as Rs. 1000/-, is concerned, the same is not disputed but the averment is that on account of a typographical error, instead of Rs. 2000/-, Rs. 1000/- was typed.
5. We have perused the averments contained in ground 12 (VII) of the petition, those contained in paragraph 16 of the return of the Detaining Authority wherein the said ground has been replied to and heard the learned Counsel for the parties. We find merit in grounds 12 (VII).
The Supreme Court in the oft quoted case of Shalini Soni v. Union of India : 1980CriLJ1487 , has in paragraph 7 held that:
'Grounds' in Article 22(5) do not mean mere factual inferences but mean factual inferences plus factual material which led to such factual inferences.
In view of the said ratio, bearing in mind that Premkumar Jaiswal is the victim referring to in ground 5(a)(1) of the grounds of detention and in respect of his injuries CR 112/2001 referred to above, was registered it cannot be disputed that the injury report of Premkumar Jaiswal was a vital document. Since it was a vital document and its translation was furnished to the detenu in Marathi, it was incumbent that the said translation should have been true and faithful. It is pertinent to mention that it is not so because popliteal region is the region at the knee joint and obviously its translation as 'head' in Marathi is palpably wrong.
6. In our judgment, on account of the aforesaid infirmity in translation, the detenu could have been confused or misled in exercising his fundamental right of making an effective representation, guaranteed to him by Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India. We feel that his said right was impaired.
7. It is pertinent to mention that Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India, casts an obligation on the Detaining Authority to furnish to the detenu, as soon as possible, the grounds of detention. This obligation is obviously because if the same is not done, the detenu would not be able to effectively exercise his fundamental right guaranteed to him by the said provision of making an effective representation. It is implicit that the detenu can only exercise his aforesaid right, if the factual material on which the grounds are founded, is supplied to him in a language known to him and the translation of the said material is true and faithful of the original, which is not the case here, as is manifest from the Marathi translation of the injury report of Premkumar Jaiswal.
8. It is pertinent to mention that in the case of Shalini Soni (supra) Chinnappa Reddy, J. has, in paragraph 3 observed thus:
Since all the constitutional protection that a detenu can claim is the little that is afforded by the procedural safeguards prescribed by Article 2(5) read with Article 19, the Courts have a duty to rigidly insist that preventive detention procedures be fair and strictly observed. A breach of the procedural imperative must lead to the release of the detenu.
9. In our view, in view of the ratio laid down in Shalini Soni's case (supra), which we have extracted above, the aforesaid infirmity in translation would vitiate the detention of the detenu.
10. We now come to the second infirmity in translation, namely, that in the original grounds of detention in>in camera statement of witness 'B' it is mentioned that amount of Rs. 2000/- was demanded but in Marathi translation, it was stated that Rs. 1000/- was demanded and, therefore, the decant could have been confused or misled In exercising his fundamental right of making an effective representation. We have been that the stand point of the Detaining Authority is that the aforesaid infirmity crept in on account of a typographical error. We are inclined to accept this explanation of the Detaining Authority. We have gone through, both the original statement of witness 'B' and its Marathi translation and make no bones in observing that apart from the said infirmity, we do not notice any other infirmity in the Marathi translation. In our view since the translation in all other respects is true and faithful on account of the aforesaid infirmity, the detenu could not have been confused or misled in exercising his right of making an effective representation guaranteed to him by Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India.
11. It should be borne in mind that so long as the translation is substantially correct and conveys the meaning, a minor discrepancy, of the type referred to above, would not vitiate the detention.
12. The aforesaid discussion would show that the only infirmity in translation is the first infirmity, referred to above. In our view the said infirmity alone is sufficient to vitiate the detention of the detenu because on account of it the detenu's fundamental right of making an effective representation was impaired.
13. In the result:- We allow this writ petition; quash and set aside the impugned detention order; direct that the detenu Dilip Ganpat Panchal be released forthwith unless wanted in some other case; and make the rule absolute.