Shri Harish Khetri Dip @ Depak vs Shri M.N. Singh, Commissioner Of ...
2003 Latest Caselaw 1129 Bom

JUDGMENT

Ranjana Desai, J.

1. The petitioner is detained under an order of detention dated 29/11/2002 issued by the Commissioner of Police, Brihan Mumbai, under the provisions of the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords, Bootleggers, Drug Offenders and Dangerous Persons Act, 1981 (for short, the MPDA Act). The order of detention, grounds of detention and the material in support thereof were served on the petitioner on or about 29/11/2002. In this petition, the petitioner has challenged the said order of detention.

2. Though several grounds have been agitated in the petition, Mr. Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioner, has pressed only one ground viz. that the translation of injury certificate of Santosh R. Jadhav, which is supplied to the petitioner is incomplete and wrongly translated. It is stated that the grounds of detention indicate that the detaining authority had referred to and relied on a criminal case being C.R. No. 136 of 2002. The said case pertains to an incident dated 16/5/2002. In that incident, the said Santosh Jadhav sustained injuries on his head and face. Santosh Jadhav is said to be an associate of the petitioner. In the grounds of detention, it is stated that Santosh Jadhav had been man-handled and he sustained injury on his head and face. It is contended by Mr. Tripathi that because an incomplete and wrong translation of the said vital document viz. injury certificate of Santosh Jadhav was supplied to the petitioner, there is a violation of the petitioner's right under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India. Mr. Tripathi urged that the petitioner was prevented from making an effective representation at the earliest and, therefore, the order of detention deserves to be set aside.

3. In support of this submission, Mr. Tripathi has relied on judgments of this court in Criminal Writ Petition No. 25 of 1999 in Farooq @ Firoz Hasan Bhagwan v. The Commissioner of Police, Greater Bombay, dated 20/7/1999; Criminal Writ Petition No, 488 of 1999 in Rajesh Satyanarayan Mishra v. R.H. Mendonca, dated 12/1/2000; Mohammed Rafique Abdul Majid v. R.H. Mendonca and Ors., 1999 All MR (Cri) 1633 and Soud Ahmed Jubber Khan v. O.P. Bali and Ors., 1999 All MR (Cri.) 641.

4. In Farooq's case (supra), the detaining authority has relied upon the injury report of Noor Alam Khalil Khan, who was assaulted with a sword by the detenu. The Hindi translation of the said certificate was not supplied to the detenu. The detenu only knew Hindi. It was held by this court that the order of detention was vitiated.

5. In Rajesh Satyanarayan Mishra's case (supra), incorrect translation of several documents was supplied to the detenu and, hence, the order of detention was set aside. In our opinion, ratio of this judgment will have to be confined to the facts of that case. It is stated in that judgment that incorrect translation of several documents was supplied to the detenu. Moreover, it is not clear as to what was the nature of those documents.

6. In Mohammed Rafique Abdul Majid's case (supra), admittedly, correct translation of injury certificate of one Abdul Kalam Javed Master was not supplied to the detenu. The complaint against the detenu was lodged by the said Abdul Kalam Javed Master. It was held that there was a violation of detenu's right under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India and the order of detention was set aside.

7. In Soud Ahmed Jubber Khan's case (supra), the detenu was supplied with wrong translation of the grounds of detention. On a request made by the detenu, the detenu was supplied with second translation of the grounds of detention. The said translation was also not a complete translation. There were mistakes in the second translation also. It is in this context that this court held that the order of detention was vitiated on account of violation of detenu's right under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India. We are of the opinion that this judgment must also be confined to the facts of that case. It will have no application to the fats of the present case.

8. In the present case, the detenu is only conversant with Hindi. In the Hindi translation of the Injury certificate, the injuries have not been translated at all. The injury certificate is in respect of the associate of the petitioner. We do not find any reference to the certificate in the grounds of detention but, it is stated that an associate of the petitioner - Santosh Jadhav was man-handled and eh sustained injury on his head and face. We feel that in the facts of this case, it may be possible to argue that this injury certificate is neither referred to nor relied upon by the detaining authority nor can it be called a vital and material document and, therefore, non supply of injury certificate of Santosh Jadhav will not vitiate the order of detention. The judgment of this court on which reliance is placed by the petitioner can perhaps he distinguished from the facts of the present case. However, we are amazed at the reply filed by the detaining authority. In his reply, the detaining authority has stated that the injury certificate of the associate of the petitioner is not a vital document. However, it is asserted that the detenu has been furnished with true, correct, faithful and legible copy of the injury certificate of his associate. It is further denied that the said injury certificate is wrongly translated with omission of injuries in the injury certificate. This is factually incorrect. Admittedly, the injuries have not been translated in Hindi at all. This denial itself indicates non-application of mind of the detaining authority. Filing of such affidavit reflects on the state of mind of the detaining authority. We feel that the detaining authority has adopted a casual and callous approach. On this ground alone, we will have to set aside the detention order. We hope that in future, affidavits are filed by the detaining authority with a sense of responsibility.

9. In the result, we quash and set aside the impugned order of detention dated 29/11/2002 passed by the Commissioner of Police, Brihan Mumbai, detaining the petitioner - Harish Khetri Dip @ Dipak under the provisions of MPDA Act and direct that petitioner Harish Khetri Dip @ Dipak be released from detention unless he is otherwise required in some other case.

10. Petition is disposal of in the aforestated terms.