JUDGMENT - M.L. Dudhat, J. :— By this petition the petitioner has challenged his detention under sub- section (2) of section 3 of the National Security Act, 1980 (hereinafter referred to for the sake of brevity as 'the said Act') dated 14th January, 1991, passed by the Commissioner of Police, Greater Bombay-respondent No.1 herein. Prior to the present order of detention the petitioner was served with a detention order dated 9th of August, 1990, issued under sub-section (2) of section 3 of the said Act. However, this order of detention was revoked by the Government on 11th of January, 1991. Thereafter, on 14th of January, 1991, respondent No.1 issued the impugned order of detention. Along with the impugned order of detention the petitioner was also served with the grounds of detention.

2. Mr. Tripathy, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, has challenged this order of detention on various grounds. However, the main thrust of his argument is that in view of the discrepancies between the documents in English relied upon by the detaining authority and their translations in Marathi supplied to the petitioner-detenu, he has been prejudicially affected in his right to make an effective representation against his detention and, therefore, the impugned order of detention has become illegal and invalid on this ground alone. On the other and Mr. Page, the learned Counsel, appearing on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 and 2 supported by Mr. Patwardhan, the learned Counsel, appearing on behalf of the Union of India have stranuously contended that there is no substance whatsover in the above contention raised by the petitioner. According to them, the errors or discrepancies in the original certificates which are in English and their translated copies in Marathi supplied to the petitioner are of a very minor nature and, therefore, they have in no way affected the right of the petitioner to make an effective representation against his detention. The detention order is, therefore, perfectly valid.

3. In order to understand the rival contentions raised by both the sides on the factual aspects of the documents in their right perspective it is necessary to analyse the discrepancies between these original documents relied upon by the detaining authority and the translations thereof supplied to the petitioner in order to enable him to make an effective representation against has detention order. The learned Counsel on behalf of the petitioner has taken us through five documents i.e., four medical certificates and one application for reduction of bail amount. The discrepancies between the documents in English relied upon by the detaining authority and their translations in Marathi supplied to the petitioner-detenu are-1) Medical Certificate in English dated 19-4-1990 issued by the Medical Officer? Bandra (West), Exh. B at page 49 of the petition, the contents of which are as under:

"MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF GREATER BOMBAY

No.18571 Date: 19-4-90

This is to certify that they Amrutlal Ladda Moru was treated in this hospital, out-patient department as a casually admitted in this hospital, from 24-8-89 and discharged on _______

He/She was brought to this hospital by P.C. No.22604/Khar and was suffering from the following injuries:

(1) I.W. (Lt.) Little finger at tip1 CM x 1/4/CM x Superfinal.

(2) MA (Lt.) ring finger, Proximal Phalymx.

The above injuries were sustained by him/her as per his/her statement, accidentally during the performance of his/her legitimate duties and are/were not due to his/her own neglience as disobedience of orders.

He/She is recommended leave for a period of ________ His/Her injuries were such as to prevent him/her from attending to his/her normal duties.

OPD.NO._________

Indoor No. 7259.

Sd/-Medical Officer,

Bandra(w),Bombay 400050."

4. It can be seen that the bracketed portion of this certificate is not found in its Marathi translation. Moreover, Injury No.2 'MA (