JUDGMENT Vishnu Sabai, J.
1. Through this criminal writ petition preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner, who describes herself as the mother of the detenu Mohd. Arif Abdul Gafar Shaikh, has impugned the detention order dated 10.7.2000, passed by the first respondent, Shri 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) (Amendment 1996), hereinafter referred to as the "M.P.D.A. Act".
The detention order along with the grounds of detention, which are also dated 10.7.2000, was served on the detenu on 10.7.2000 itself 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. 15/2000 under sections 452, 323, 504, 506(11) and 34 of the Indian Penal Code r/w sections 4 and 25 of the Arms Act and sections 37(1)(a) and 135 of the Bombay Police Act, registered on the basis of a complaint dated 27.1.2000. lodged by one Smt. Shamimbegam Sayyed Nasiralli at Sir J.J. Marg Police Station and the in-camera statements of two witnesses, namely, A and B which were recorded on 25.2.2000 and 22.5.2000, respectively.
Since, in our view, a reference, to the prejudicial activities of the detenu contained in the aforesaid C.R. and the in-camera statements is not necessary for the adjudication of the solitary ground pleaded in the petition, on which, in our view, this petition deserves to succeed, we are not adverting to them.
3. We have heard learned Counsel for the parties. As mentioned by us earlier, the solitary ground which has been pleaded in the petition and on which this petition deserves to succeed is ground 6(A).
In short, the said ground is that the detenu knows only Hindi language and since the expression public order in the original detention order and the grounds of detention, which are in English, has been translated in the Hindi grounds as law and order, the detenu could not make an effective representation under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India. It has also been averred in the said ground that for infraction of the law and order the provisions contained in section 3(1) of the M.P.D.A. Act would not be attracted.
4. In our view, there is merit in ground 6(A). We find that in the original detention order, which Is in English (Annexure 'A'). it has been mentioned that with a view to preventing the detenu from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order it was necessary to detain him under the M.P.D.A. Act. However, in the Hindi translation of the detention order, a xerox copy of which has been filed at page 10 of the petition, the expression public order has been translated as law and order. Again, we find that in the grounds of detention in English (Annexure 'B'), in paragraph 5, it has been mentioned that the action taken against the detenu under the normal law of the land was found to be ineffective and inadequate to put stop to his criminal activities prejudicial to the maintenance of public order in the aforesaid localities and areas. However, in the Hindi translation of the grounds of detention, a true copy of which is annexed at pages 21 to 29 of the petition the expression public order in paragraph 5 has been translated as law and order.
Again, we find that in paragraph 6 of the grounds of detention, which are in English, it has been mentioned that the Detaining Authority was satisfied that in the event of the detenu remaining at large, he was likely to, revert to similar activities prejudicial to the maintenance of public order in future and hence it was necessary to detain him under the M.P.D.A. Act; but in the Hindi translation of paragraph 6, of the grounds of detention the expression public order has been translated as law and order.
5. It is well-settled that a translation has to be a faithful reproduction of the original. Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India provides that the Detaining Authority shall furnish to the detenu, as soon as may be, the grounds on which the detention order has been made and shall also afford him the earliest opportunity of making a representation against the said order. 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 is to enable him, at the earliest opportunity, to make a representation against the order. It is obvious that the detenu can only exercise his fundamental right of making the representation under the said Article if the translated grounds of detention, the translated material on which the grounds are founded and the translated detention order are true and faithful translation of the original.
When that is not so, as is the case here, it would always be open for the detenu to say that on account of error in the translation, his right to make an effective representation under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India was impaired.
We are not oblivious to the fact that a mistake simpliciter in a translation would not vitiate the detention order and the same would only be vitiated where the mistake in the translation pertains to vital a document. It goes without saying that the detention order and the grounds of detention, in the translation of which there is a mistake in the instant case, are vital documents. And the mistake is also vital. Public order is distinct from law and order. For violation of the latter section 3(1) of the M.P.D.A. Act cannot be invoked.
6. For the aforesaid reasons, we allow this petition; quash and set aside the impugned detention order; direct that the detenu Mohd. Arif Abdul Gafar Shaikh be released forthwith unless wanted in some other case; and make the rule absolute.