Bhaskar A. Shetty Vs. M.N. Singh, Commissioners of Police, Greater Bombay and ors. - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
maharashtra prevention of dangerous activities of slumlords, bootleggers, drug offenders and dangerous persons act, 1981 (amendment 1996) - section 3(1) - constitution of india, 1950 - article 22(5) - detention order - supply of copies of documents in the language known to the detenu - incorrect translation - if right of detenu to make effective representation prejudiced or frustrated, detention order to be struck down - if not infirmity in translation in-consequential and detention order sustained.; a perusal of article 22(5) of the constitution of india would show that the object of supplying to the detenu the grounds of detention at the earliest opportunity is to enable him to make a representation at the earliest opportunity. it is well settled that the grounds of detention also include the material on which the grounds are founded and both the grounds of detention and the material on which the grounds of detention are founded should be supplied to the detenu in the language intelligible to him and if same is not done, then the detenu would not be able to exercise his right of making an effective representation.;in deciding the question whether a detention order is rendered unsustainable on account of incorrect translation what has to be borne in mind by courts is as to whether on account of any infirmity in the translation, the detenu's right to make a representation has been prejudiced or frustrated. if in a given case the answer is in the affirmative, the detention order would have to be struck down but if it is in the negative, the said infirmity would be classified as inconsequential and the detention order would be sustained. - - it is well-settled that the grounds of detention also include the material on which the grounds are founded and both the grounds of detention and the material on which the grounds of detention are founded should be supplied to the detenu in the language intelligible to him and if same is not done, then the detenu would not be able to exercise his right of making an effective representation. we fail to see how this infirmity impeded the right of the detenu to make an effective representation.vishnu sahai, j. 1. through this criminal writ petition preferred under article 226 of the constitution of india, the petitioner, who describes himself as the brother of the detenu prabhakar achanna shetty, has impugned the detention order dated 5.8.2000, passed by the first respondent, shri m. n. singh, commissioner of police, brihan mumbai, detaining the detenu under subsection (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) (amendment 1996).the detention order along with the grounds of detention, which are also dated 5.8.2000. was served on the detenu on 9.8.2000 and their true copies are annexed as annexures a and b respectively to this petition.2. a perusal of the grounds of detention (annexure b) would show that the impugned detention order is founded on one c.r., namely, c.r. no.270/1999 under section 307/34 of the indian penal code, registered on the basis of a complaint dated 5.12.1999, lodged by one arjun kamble at the parksite police station and the in-camera statements of two witnesses, namely, a and b which were recorded on 25.3.2000. since, in our view, a reference to the prejudicial activities of the detenu is not necessary for the adjudication of the solitary ground pressed by counsel for the petitioner, we are not referring to the details contained in the complaint giving rise to the aforesaid c.r. and those stipulated in the in-camera statements of the said witnesses.3. we have heard learned counsel for the parties. although in this writ petition mr. u. n. tripathi, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has pleaded a large number of grounds, running from grounds 8(a) to 8(j), but since he has only pressed before us a solitary ground, namely, that pleaded as ground no. 8(f), we are not adverting to the other grounds of challenge pleaded in the petition.ground 8(f), in short, is that the detenu has been furnished copies of documents in english and marathi along with their hindi translation and since the hindi translation is not a true and faithful translation of the original documents in english and marathi, the detenu's right to make an effective representation under article 22(5) of the constitution of india was impaired. in ground 8(f), three instances of incorrect translation have been enumerated.the first instance is that in paragraph 6 of the grounds of detention it has been mentioned that in the event of the detenu remaining at large, he was likely to revert to similar prejudicial activities, whereas in the hindi translation the said sentence has been translated to mean if you abscond, you are likely to revert to similar prejudicial activities.the second instance has not been pressed by the learned counsel for the petitioner. hence we are not adverting to it.the third instance relates to c.r. no. 270/1999, which has been mentioned earlier as a ground of detention. that c.r. pertains to a case under section 307/34 of the indian penal code. the infirmity is an respect of the hindi translation of the ball order which was passed by this court in english. the infirmity pointed out is that while granting bail this court observed that ball was subject to condition that twice every week the detenu would report at vikhroli parksite police station and this condition was imposed to allay the fear of the prosecution that the detenu would not misuse bail. in the hindi translation, to which mr. tripathi has invited our attention, the word 'twice' is missing and what has been mentioned is that every week the detenu would report at the parksite police station, and it is also missing therein that the condition has been imposed to ensure that the detenu would not misuse the bail.4. ground 8(f) has been replied to in paragraph 16 of the return of the detaining authority. the short and long of the averment in the said paragraph is that the hindi translation was fairly true and correct and the infirmities, if any, did not prejudice the right of the detenu to make an effective representation.5. we have heard learned counsel for the parties: perused ground 8(f) and the reply furnished to it by the detaining authority in paragraph 16 of his return.6. a perusal of article 22(5) of the constitution of india would show that the object of supplying to the detenu the grounds of detention at the earliest opportunity is to enable him to make a representation at the earliest opportunity. it is well-settled that the grounds of detention also include the material on which the grounds are founded and both the grounds of detention and the material on which the grounds of detention are founded should be supplied to the detenu in the language intelligible to him and if same is not done, then the detenu would not be able to exercise his right of making an effective representation.7. in deciding the question whether a detention order is renderedunsustainable on account of incorrect translation what has to be borne inmind by courts is as to whether on account of any infirmity in thetranslation, the detenu's right to make a representation has been prejudiced or frustrated. if in a given case the answer is in the affirmative, thedetention order would have to be struck down but if it is in the negative.the said infirmity would be classified as inconsequential and the detentionorder would be sustained.8. it is in this perspective that the two infirmities highlighted in ground 8(f) have to be examined. as seen earlier, the first infirmity is that in the english version it is mentioned that in the event of the detenu remaining at large, he was likely to revert to similar prejudicial activities but the hindi translation is in terms if you abscond you are likely to revert to similar prejudicial activities. the inference of the detaining authority that the detenu could revert to prejudicial activities, in our view, is compatible in both the situations. hence, in our view, this infirmity is inconsequential.the second infirmity is in terms that in the hindi translation in respect of the condition or reporting at vikhroli parksite police station, it has not been mentioned that the detenu shall report twice at the said police station and what has been mentioned is he shall report every week. we fail to see how this infirmity impeded the right of the detenu to make an effective representation. again, although it is true that in the bail order in english it has been mentioned that the condition of reporting has been imposed to allay the fear of the prosecution that in case the detenu is granted bail, he would not misuse the same and the word 'not' is not in the hindi translation but in our view, the same meaning has been conveyed therein. what has been conveyed in the hindi translation in english means that this condition has been imposed to ensure that the detenu does not misuse the bail. once again, we feel that this infirmity is inconsequential and would not affect the detenu's right to make an effective representation.9. for the said reasons, in our view, ground 8(f) fails.10. no other ground was pressed before us by the learned counsel for the petitioner.11. in the result, this petition is dismissed and the rule is discharged.