SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Headnote Court Copy Facts Arguments Court observation Judicial Analysis Case Map Category Hierarchy Table of Content
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

1998 Supreme(Bom) 815

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
M. Arumugham,T.K. Chandrashekhara Das, JJ.
Ravi Chabiram Sharma ..... Petitioner.
Versus
R.H. Mendonca, Commissioner of Police others ..... Respondents.
Cri. Writ Petition No. 312 of 1998, decided on 21-12-1998.
Advocates appeared :
U.N. Tripathi, for the petitioner.
Rajiv L. Patil, Addl. P.P., for the State.

Subject

Preventive Detention - Validity of Detention Order

Act Referred

CONSTITUTION OF INDIA : Art.226, Art.22(5)
MAHARASHTRA PREVENTION OF DANGEROUS ACTIVITIES OF SLUMLORDS, BOOTLEGGERS, DRUG OFFENDERS AND DANGEROUS PERSONS ACT : S.3(1), S.3, S.2(b)(1)

Headnote

Section 3(1)-Constitution of India, Article 22(5)-Detention Validity-Plea that supply of wrong translated Hindi version copies of detention order prejudiced detenu and rendered him unable to make effective and adequate representation before detaining authority-Translated Hindi version of copies of detention order carried the same substantial meaning as the original English version of detention order Challenge rejected.- The petitioner who was detained under Section 3(1) of the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords. Bootleggers, Drug Offenders and Dangerous Persons Act, 1981, challenged the detention order on the ground that the wrong translation of the documents in Hindi version supplied to him prejudiced him and made it difficult to make effective and adequate representation before the detaining authority as provided under Article 22(5) of the Constitution. The petitioner himself had studied upon 10th standard in English medium school and he was well served in English Language to read and write and since he hailed from Uttar Pradesh, one of the States in which the vernacular language is Hindi, some documents in English and Marathi were translated in Hindi and the copies of the same were furnished to the detenu. The said translated copies in Hindi though did not have actual words, the translated Hindi version copies carried the same substantial meaning as the English version of the detention order in original as passed. The contention of the petitioner, therefore, that wrong translation was supplied to him was without any merit and hence rejected.
JUDGMENT - N. ARUMUGHAM, J.:---Through filing this writ of Habeas Corpus under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner-the detenu himself -has challenged the order of detention passed by the first respondent Mr. R.H. Mendonca, the Commissioner of Police, Brihan Mumbai in Detention Order bearing No. 103/P.C.B./D.P./Zone-VI/1997 dated 18-12-1997, pursuant to sub-clause (1) of section 3 of Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords, Bootleggers, Drug Offenders and Dangerous Persons Act, 1981 (No. LV of 1981) amended on 1996 for its illegality and impropriety. The order of detention shown as Exh. A along with the grounds of detention annexed as Exh. B with the documents numbering about 35, all covering from page 1 to 252 annexed in Exh. C, were served upon the detenu on 19-12-1997 simultaneously.

2. The prejudicial activities grounded by the Detaining Authority with above order of detention in substance are as follows:-

At about 19.45 hours on 18-8-1997 one Mr. Dattatraya Namdeo Sawant, a resident of Ghanashyam Kripa, R.B. Kadam Marg, Bhatwadi, Ghatkopar (West), Mumbai 400 084 came to Ghatkopar Police Station and gave a complaint, which was registered in Ghatkopar Police Station C.R. No. 278/97 on 18-8-1997 for the offences under section 387, 34 of the Indian Penal Code with the following subtratum:-

3. Shri. Dattatraya Namdeo Sawant has started building construction work since last one year, at Rupal Industries, opposite Sona Hospital, Bhatwadi, Kajupada, Ghatkopar (West), Mumbai and that at about 16-00 hours on 7-8-1997 while he was at his residence-cum-office, he received a telephone call through his telephone No. 5113011 and that person on line gave his name as Rohit Varma and told Dattatraya Sawant that he was speaking on behalf of Nanabhai and threatened Dattatraya Sawant to contact Nanabhai at Malaysia on Telephone No. 00872-685051625 and 685051622 in connection with the construction work carried out by him at Bhatwadi. At about 15.00 hours on 8-8-1997 Dattatraya Sawant received a telephone call from Rohit Verma, who threatened him of death if Dattatraya Sawant failed to contact Nanabhai on the given telephone numbers. At about 14.30 hours on 9-8-1997 Dattatraya Sawant again received telephone from Rohit Verma, who threatened him for not contacting Nanabhai. Again on 13-8-1997 he received telephone call from Rohit Verma who then demanded money under threats of death. Likewise at about 10.40 hours on 17-8-1997 Dattatraya Sawant again received telephone from Rohit Varma who demanded Rupees 10 lacs under threats of death. Thereafter he also received telephone calls repeatedly on 25-8-1997, 27-8-1997 and on 28-8-1997 from the so called Rohit Verma and his associates by name Mahesh Raj @ Jitu Mehta in pursuance of demand made by him and his associates giving the name of Nanabhai. The said calls were recorded on Sanyo Pocket tape recorder. However the calls received by Mr. Sheshgiri Pai, the clerk of Dattatraya Sawant, on 27-8-1997 was also recorded on the said tape recorder. During negotiations, an amount of Rs. one lac was fixed. Then as decided on telephone, on 28-8-1997 at about 28.00 hours wearing clothes as decided, Dattatraya Sawant visited Hotel Radhakrishna, Sarvodaya Junction, L.B.S. Marg. along with the 10 bundles of G. C. notes purported to be the amount of Rs. one lac each having genuine G.C. Notes of Rs. 100/- on either side of the bundle. Thereafter at the time of handing over the said amount to the associate by name Chand @ Raju Soharab Khan, the police party raided the place and took charge of the amount, and documents including the G.C. Note of Rs. 50/- bearing No. JHH-970092 which was decided as signal under panchanama and so also arrested his associate Chand Khan.

4. Further statement of Dattatraya Sawant dated 23--8-1997, 25-8-1997, 27-8-1997 and 28-8-1997 were on record which revealed the aforesaid incident. The statement of Sheshgiri Pai was also recorded by police, which co

















































1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top