Shri Bapurao Shankar Chavan vs Shri M.N. Singh, Commissioner Of ...
2001 Latest Caselaw 196 Bom

ORDER

Vishnu Sahai, J.

1. Through this writ petition preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner who describes himself as friend of the detenu Kashinath Namdeo Naravade has impugned the detention order dated 4.8.2000 passed by the First Respondent Mr. M. N. Singh. Commissioner of Police, Greater Bombay detaining the detenu under sub-section (1) of sections of 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 4.8.2000 was served on the detenu on 20.8.2000.

 2. A perusal of the grounds of detention would show that the impugned       order is founded on one namely C. R. No. 53 of 2000 under section              447 of the  I .P.C. read  with sections 26(1) and 30 of the  Indian Forest Act, 
        1927 registered on the basis of a compliant dated 8.3.2000 lodged by one            Bhimrao Laxman Chougule at Kandivli (East) Police Station and in camera             statement of three witnesses namely A (recorded on 8.5.2000 B (recorded
         on 8.5.2000 and C (recorded on 9.5.2000).  
 

3. Since in our view a reference to the prejudicial activities of the detenu contained in the grounds of detention is not necessary for the adjudication of ground Nos. 6(C) and 6(E) pleaded in the petition, on which grounds in our view this writ petition deserves to be allowed, we are not adverting to them.

4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. Grounds 6(C) and 6(E) read thus :- .

6(C).

"The Petitioner says and submits that the detenu has been furnished With Marathi translation of grounds of detention and all other grounds of the compilation. The Petitioner says and submits that the detenu being a Maharashtrian is well conversant with Marathi language only. The Petitioner says and submits that the Marathi translation of English documents furnished to the detenu are not true and correct translation of their counterpart thereby not conveying faithful meaning of the original grounds of detention. The detenu says and submits that in para 5 of the grounds of detention the very crucial word 'Subjective Satisfaction' is wrongly translated as "Personal Opinion" which amounts to non recording of the satisfaction of the Detaining Authority. The detenu further submits that in para 6 of grounds of detention the very crucial words 'Public Order" as is wrongly translated as Public Safety. There are also many other wrong translation in the documents. Law is well settled that furnishing wrong translation amounts to non communication of grounds of detention, thus violating the first fact of Article 22(5) of the Constitution. The Petitioner further submits that as a result of furnishing wrong translation, the detenu could not make effective representation, thus violating both the_ facts of Article 22(5) of the Constitution."

6(E).

"The Petitioner says and submits that even though the order of detention in English Verse is dated 4.8.2000, it is found in its Marathi translation as 4.7.2000, which misleads and creates confusion about the exact date of detention. The Petitioner says and submits that furnishing wrong translation particularly the date of detention, shows clear non-application of mind of the Detaining Authority. The order is illegal and bad-in-law."

5. Mr. Tripathi urged that on 23.8.2000, the detenu through him made a representation to the Secretary to the Government of Maharashtra, Home Department (Special) (Preventive Detention) Mantralaya, Mumbal mentioning therein the aforesaid mistakes in the Marathi translation of the grounds of detention supplied to the detenu and although the said representation was received by the said functionery on 23.8.2000 itself, the correctly translated grounds of detention in Marathi were supplied to the detenu as late as on 18.9.2000 whereby violating his fundamental right guaranteed

by Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India of making a representation at the earliest opportunity.

6. Ground No. 6(C) and 6(E) have been replied to in paras 11 and 13 of the return of the Detaining Authority.

The said paras read thus :-

"11. With reference to para 6(C) of the petition, I deny that the Marathi translation of English documents furnished to the detenu is not true and correct translation and the same does not convey the true and correct meaning as alleged by the petitioner. It is further denied that Marathi translation does not convey the faithful meaning of the original grounds of detention as alleged by the petitioner. It is respectfully say and submit that the word subjective satisfaction and public order are correctly translated in Marathi language and their different meaning were duly communicated to the detenu at the time of serving the detention order and the grounds of detention, hence petitioner cannot be allowed to take advantage of typographical error in respect of those two words, therefore, it is further denied that there is any wrong translation furnished to the detenu thereby resulting into the violation of fundamental rights of the detenu under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India as alleged by the petitioner. It is further denied that on account of the same, the petitioner could not made effective representation and thus violating both the facts of 'Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India as alleged by the petitioner. It is submitted that true and correct translation of the documents are furnished and communicated to the detenu to enable him to make the effective and purposeful representation and hence, there is no substance in the allegations made by the petitioner in this para. However, on request, again the true translation was furnished to the detenu on 18.9.2000."

"(13) With reference to para 6(E) of the petition, it is true that in the Marathi translation, the date of order is mentioned as 4.7.2000 instead of 4.8.2000, due to error committed by the typist while typing the same. However, the said mistake is innocuous and have no much consequence. Therefore, it is denied that the said mistake misleads and creates confusion about the exact date of detention. I say that at the time of executing the order of detention and serving the grounds of detention, Sr. P. I. Samatanagar police station has communicated the true translation and meaning of the detention order including the date of detention order, therefore this contention is having no substance. I deny that there is any non-application of mind on my part in furnishing the wrong translation as alleged by the petitioner. It is further pertinent to note that the detenu is fully literate person and has studied upto 9th standard in Marathi medium. He also knows Hindi and English languages and he has signed and wrote the date of English. In view of this the alleged mistake assumes an innocuous nature and it cannot be magnified into something of any consequence and therefore the said contention is having no substance."

7. Mr. I. S. Thakur, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondents strenuously urged that at any rate, since the correctly translated copy of the grounds of detention in Marathi were supplied to the detenu on 18.9.2000, the averments contained in ground No. 6(C) and 6(E) to the effect that the detenu's right to make a representation was vitiated is misconceived.

8. We have reflected over Mr. Thakur's submission and are constrained to observe that we do not find any merit in it. A perusal of Article 22(5) of

the Constitution of India shows that the fundamental right of the detenu under the said Article is not only of making a representation simplicitor but, of making the same at the earliest opportunity. It is true as urged by Mr. Thakur that since the detenu was supplied with a correctly translated copy of the grounds of detention in Marathi on 18.9.2000, his right to make a representation was not impaired but, in our view since a copy of the said grounds was supplied to the "detenu 26 days later, his fundamental right to make a representation at the earliest opportunity was impaired. We have earlier seen that the representation was sent by the detenu through his counsel on 23.8.2000 and although it was received on the said date but, a copy of the correctly translated grounds of detention in Marathi were sent as late as on 18.9.2000. In such a situation, it cannot be said that the correctly translated grounds of detention (in Marathi) were supplied to the detenu at the earliest opportunity.

9. In the circumstances, we allow this writ petition; quash the impugned detention order; direct that the detenu - Kashinath Narndeo Naravade be released forthwith unless wanted in some other case; and make the rule absolute.