AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
T.K. Chandrashekhara Das, J.—The petitioner is the father of the detenu, Javed Ismail Kapadia, who has been detained u/s 3(1) of the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords, Bootleggers, Drug Offenders and Dangerous Persons Act, 1981 (hereinafter called the Act) by order dated 20-8-1998 passed by Shri R. H. Mendonca, Commissioner of Police, Brihan Mumbai, with a view to prevent the detenu him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. The said order was served on the detenu on 1-9-1998, which is annexed to the writ petition as Annexure ''A''. Along with this order of detention, grounds of detention dated 20-8-1998 also served on the detenu, which is annexed to the writ petition, as Annexure ''B''.
Mr. Tripathi the learned counsel for the petitioner though raised various contentions in the writ petition, at the time of hearing he confined his argument only to one ground, namely, wrong translation of the grounds of detention were served on the detenu. To be precise the contention of the learned counsel is that as stated in the amended ground 7(e) of the writ petition that the detenu is not conversant with the English language; that he is studied only upto 5th standard; he is a Muslim in religion and his daily speaking language is Hindi. It is further stated in the writ petition para 4(b-iii) of the grounds of detention of the English version is completely missing in Hindi translation at page No. 30. 4(b-iii) of the grounds of detention as shown in English version reads as follows :-
4(b-iii) In this connection on the complaint of Shri Raju Bhagwandas Shroff a case u/s 387, 506(ii), Indian Penal Code was registered at M.R.A. Marg Police station vide C.R. No. 216/98 on 5-6-1998.
In the light of argument of the learned counsel, we perused the Hindi translation of the grounds of detention served on the detenu, which is produced by the petitioner along with the writ petition at page 30. On perusal it is seen that the aforesaid paragraph in total is missing in the Hindi translation.
A reply has been filed by the first respondent regarding the allegations contained in the amended writ petition. It is stated in the reply that the detenu was a student of English medium and studied upto 5th standard and therefore he can very well rely upon the grounds of detention order served on him in English for the purpose of making effective representation. It is further stated that such omission is not concerning the vital portion of the grounds of detention. We do not think that it is a proper reply. It is admitted that there is an omission of ground 4(b-iii) in Hindi translation. We find that this is a serious omission which may go to the root of the rights of the detenu in making effective representation in exercise of its right conferred on him under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India. When once the translation of the order and documents served on the detenu, it is incumbent upon the Detaining Authority to supply true and faithful translation without any omissions.
Incidentally, we may point out that in Criminal Writ Petition No. 1596/98 similar omission was made in case of a co-detenu Haresh Haratmal Ahuja and we have in our judgment dated 23-6-1999 set aside the detention order on the similar grounds. The respondents were not able to distinguish the case of the prosecution in W.P. No. 1596/98 to enable us to take a different view. As we are allowing this writ petition in the aforesaid ground, we think that it is unnecessary to go into the other grounds taken by the petitioner including the prejudicial activities of the detenu. In view of this, we are left with no choice, excepting to quash the detention order impugned in the writ petition.
In the result, the writ petition is allowed. Impugned detention order is quashed. The detenu, Javed Ismail Kapadia is directed to be -released forthwith unless he is required in any other case.
Rule made absolute accordingly.