The sufficiency of documents supplied and the detenue's knowledge of English were crucial in determining the impact of incorrect translation on the detenue's right to representation.

JUDGMENT - DESHPANDE D.G., J.:---Heard Mr. Tripathi Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. B.R. Patil, Acting P.P., for the State.

2. The petition is filed by the mother of the detenue. Detenue was detained under section 8 of the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords, Bootleggers, Drug Offenders and Dangerous Persons Act (M.P.D.A. Act) by the detention order dated 31-7-2002. Number of grounds have been raised by the petitioner challenging the detention. However, Mr. Tripathi restricted himself to the amended ground No. 6(xxi) which is about incorrect and improper translation of the grounds of detention and the detention order from English to Hindi which was supplied to the detenue. According to Mr. Tripathi the mistakes in translation are gross and there are vital omissions in the translation which affected the right of the detenue to make effective representation.

3. In all seven instances have been quoted in this ground (xxi). However, Mr. Tripathi was permitted to raise other grounds also regarding this incorrect translation or omission, for which he did not raise any objection. According to Mr. Tripathi following are the instances of wrong or incorrect translation or grossly mistaken translation from English version of the grounds of detention and the detention order to their Hindi version. Both of which were supplied to the detenue simultaneously:

i) Un-numbered paragraph 1 of the grounds of detention order 5th line-word "grounds"

ii) Un-numbered paragraph 1 of the grounds of detention order 5th line-words "detention order"

iii) Un-numbered paragraph last line of the grounds of detention-words "public interest"

iv) Un-numbered paragraph last line of the grounds of detention-word "privilege."

v) Ground 4(a)(i) (internal page 27 of the petition) 19th line-words "tried to convince you"

vi) Ground 4(a)(i) (internal page 27 of the petition) 20th line-word "legal"

vii) Ground 4(a)(i) (internal page 27 of the petition) 22nd line-word "Anticipating Law and order problem"

viii) Ground 4(a)(i) (internal page 28 of the petition) 8th line-words "likely to take place"

ix) Ground 4(a)(i) (internal page 28 of the petition) 9th line-words "demolition work was stopped".

The aforesaid words in Hindi were translated as:

i) ground = dkju

ii) detention order = foks"k vknsk

iii) public interest = rqEgh mudh j{kk ds fgr eS

iv) privilege = foks"k vf/kdkj

v) tried to convince you = vkidks vkids lkFkh --vU; dks

vi) legal = voS/k

vii) anticipating law and = vkius --- ngkr dk okrkoj.k

order problem vkSj Hk; fuekZ.k fd;k Fkh

viii) likely to take place = xaHkhj fLFkrh iSnk gq;k Fkh

ix) demolition work was = fu"dkj.k dk dke :dk gqvk

stopped ns[k

Mr. Tripathi further pointed out that two important sentences in the grounds of detention in English were not at all translated and they are as under:

Para 4(a)(v) (internal page 29 of the petition) last two lines:

"You were interrogated and your statement was recorded in which you have been admitted having committed this offence."

Para 4(a)(i) (internal page 28 of the petition) 9th line:

"To avoid serious law and order problem the demolition work was stopped."

4. Apart from this objections to the detention order, Mr. Tripathi also contended that the Detaining Authority (internal page 28 of the petition) came to the conclusion that the activities of the detenue were likely to create law and order problem and therefore this is not a case where public order is involved but the law and order problem is involved and as such the detention order could not have been invoked and is therefore liable to be revoked.

5. Mr. Tripathi also contended from amended ground No. (xxiii) that vital documents referred in the F.I.R. were not supplied to the detenue nor they were placed before the detenue. He relied upon the following authorities in support of his contention:

1) 1985(2) Bom.C.R. 58 : 1986 Cri.L.J. 450 (Pradeepkumar Vanravandas Gosalia v. State of Maharashtra others)1.

2) Unreported judgment

Click Here to Read the rest of this document