Back
2005 Supreme(Bom) 360
IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
PARSHURAM BAMA MHATRE
Versus
S. CHAKR AVARTY, COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, thane
Decided on : MARCH 15, 2005
Subject
Detention - Untruthful Translation of Detention Grounds
Act Referred
Headnote
Detention order - Effective representation - Right to file representation - Whether affected by not providing correct translation of grounds of detention in Marathi known to defines only language detenu - Word ’public order’ used in the detention order was translated in Marathi as "Sarvjanik Kayda and Suvyavastha" instead of "Sarvjanik Suvyavastha". - Interpolation of word "law" in the translation in relation to ’public order’ in Marathi shows to be "public law and order" and not as public order. Bound to mislead detenu, because translation does not disclose true meaning of expression "public order".
Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords, Bootleggers, Drug Offenders and Dangerous Persons Act, 1981 - Section 3 - Detention order - Effective representation - Right to make - Whether influenced by not providing correct translation of grounds of detention which was the only Marathi language known by detenu - The words ’public order’ used in the detention order was translated in Marathi as "Sarvjanik Kayda and Suvayastha" instead of "Sarvjanik Suvayastha". - Held, it is difficult to understand how concept of "Sarvajanik Kayda and Suvayastha" can be equated with "Sarvjanik Suvayavastha". The interpolation of word "law" in the translation in relation to ’public order’ in Marathi indicates to be "public law and order" and not as public order. It is bound to mislead detenu, because translation does not disclose meaning of expression "public order".
Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords, Bootleggers, Drug Offenders and Dangerous Persons Act, 1981 - Section 3(1) - Detention - Non-providing of true translation of grounds of detention in Marathi - Ef fect - The order of detention contained incorrect translation of the word "public order" in Marathi. - Held, at least in grounds of detention correct translation ought to have been provided for. The visible difference be tween "Sarvjanik Suvyavastha" and "Sarvjanik Kayda and Suvyavastha", it was necessary for authorities to explain difference between the two or furnish correct translation it is violative of Ar ticle 22(5) of the Constitution. Apex Court also concluded practice of dilatory pro cedure adopted by the authorities. 1982 (1) SCC 422.
R. M. S. KHANDEPARKAR, J.
( 1 ) HEARD. Perused the records.
( 2 ) THE petitioner challenges the order dated 8-10-2004 passed against the son of the petitioner. The name of the detenu is Shanidas Parshuram Mhatre. The order was served upon him on 9-10-2004. The detenu preferred the representation against the said order on 16-11-2004 which came to be rejected on 24-11-2004. The order of detention has been passed on the basis of C. R. No. 77 of 2004 in relation to the offences punishable under sections 384 and 387 of the indian Penal Code in relation to the incident dated 4-6-2004 and three in-camera statements of the witnesses. The detenu was arrested in relation to the said incident but was bailed out on 9-6-2004 on execution of a personal bond for rs. 15,000/- with one surety in the like amount. The in-camera statements of two witnesses were recorded on 6-9-2004 and of the third witness on 10-9-2004.
( 3 ) THE impugned order is challenged on various grounds, however, it is not necessary to consider all those grounds and suffice to refer to only two grounds, one relating to the untruthful translation of the grounds in support of the impugned order and the other in relation to failure on the part of the respondents to furnish correct translation of the grounds of detention in spite of specific request for the same by the detenu.
( 4 ) IT is not in dispute that the detenu does not know English and he is maharashtrian person born and brought up in Maharashtra and his mothertongue is Marathi and he has also studied in Marathi language. It is also a matter of record that the detenu was served with Marathi translation of the grounds in support of the detention order,
( 5 ) WHILE assailing the impugned order on the first ground of challenge, the learned advocate for the petitioner submitted that it was the obligation of the detaining authority to furnish the detenu with correct and true translation in marathi of the grounds in support of detention in order to enable him to exercise effectively his fundamental right of making representation assured under article 22 (5) of the Constitution. It is his further contention that, while grounds in English alleged that the impugned order was passed from the point of view of preventing the detenu from indulging in the activities which can lead to public order, the Marathi translation of the grounds in support of the impugned order refers to totally different reason for the detention of the detenu. Drawing our attention to the Marathi translation of the grounds of detention, the learned advocate for the petitioner has submitted that, if one reads the said translation in marathi, it can immediately be known that the ground for detention of detenu disclosed therein is to avoid the opportunity to the detenu to indulge in the activities which can lead to problems relating to public law and order and not to the public order as such. The concept of "public order" and "law and order" are tjtally different. According to the learned advocate for the petitioner the detenu was totally misled in the matter and had no proper opportunity to make effective representation against the detention order and thereby there was clear violation of his right guaranteed to him under Article 22 (5) of the Constitution. Reliance is sought to be placed in the decisions of the Division Benches in the matter of Smt. Nazma Moiddin Shaikh vs. R. H. Mendonca and ors. , reported in 2001 (1) Mh. LJ. 697 = 2001 Cr. LJ. 860 and two unreported decisions in the matter of Sayyed hussain Ali Ashiq All vs. R. H. Mendonca and ors. , in Cri. W. P. No. 1130 of 1999 and Smt Bindu Pandey vs. S. C. Malhotra and ors. in Cri. W. P. No. 620 of 1997 delivered on 13-1-2000 and 7-11-1997 respectively. The learned A. P. P. on the other hand, referring to the affidavit in reply filed by the detaining authority has submitted that the detenu was furnished with the correct translation of the grounds in support of the detention order and he was cle
