Minor typographical errors in translation and formulation of grounds of detention do not invalidate a detention order if the detaining authority has valid reasons to believe that the detainee's activities are prejudicial to public order.

JUDGMENT

Prakash D. Naik, J. - Petitioner has invoked writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the order of detention dated 25th May 2022 issued by District Magistrate, Pune under Section 3(1) of Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords, Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Dangerous Persons, Non Licensed performers of Audiovisual Arts (Video Pirates), Sand Smugglers and Person Engaged in Black Marketing of Essential Commodities Act, 1981 (hereinafter referred to as MPD Act).

2. The order of detention was executed upon Petitioner along with grounds of detention dated 25th May 2022 accompanied with the documents relied upon by Detaining Authority while issuing order of detention.

3. The impugned order of detention has been issued with a view to prevent the Petitioner/Detenu from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. The grounds of detention specify that the detention order is based on grounds stipulated in paragraph 4 of the said grounds. Paragraph 4 refers to the offence registered with Vadgaon Nimbalkar Police Station in respect to Crime dated 9th March 2022. It is alleged that Petitioner/Detenu was found in possession of 24 plastic balloons with total 6 liters of liquor in his possession. He was selling ready made liquor to his acquaintances. The grounds also referred to the statement of confidential witness 'A' and confidential witness 'B' which were recorded on 14th March 2022 and 17th March 2022. Paragraphs 6 and 7 of the grounds of detention refer to the subjective satisfaction recorded by Detaining Authority for issuing the Order of Detention.

4. Learned advocate for Petitioner made following submissions :

(i) The Petitioner has been supplied incorrect translation. In ground No.4(b)(i), reference is made to the statement of confidential witness 'A'. In Marathi version of the grounds of detention relating to said statement it was stated that the Detenu has threatened that he should not interfere in the business and he was assaulted. Whereas, in the English translation of the grounds of detention, there is no reference to 'assault'. In respect to the incident reflected in paragraph 4(a) of the grounds of detention in Marathi version it is stated that offence was registered u/s.65(e) of Maharashtra Prohibition Act, 1949. Whereas, in the English translation it is stated that offence was registered u/s.304 of IPC. It is submitted that supply of incorrect translation has affected the right of Detenu under Article 22(5) of Constitution of India. In support of his submission, reliance is placed on the decision of this Court in the case of Bharat Kisan Mekale Vs. The Commissioner of Police, Solapur 2021-0-Supreme(Bom)-324;

(ii) The incident referred in ground 4(a)(i) had allegedly occurred on 9th March 2022 at 22.15 hours, whereas in the same paragraph it is mentioned that the FIR was registered with Vadgaon Nimbalkar Police Station at 16.42 hours. If the incident had occurred at 16.40 hours, the question of registering the FIR at 16.42 hours does not arise. The averments shows non application of mind on the part of Detaining Authority;

(iii) The Detaining Authority had relied upon statement of two witnesses recorded in-camera. The statement dated 14th March 2022 and 17th March 2022 do not show any cognizable offence and police were not authorized to investigate said offence without prior permission of competent Court and the alleged offence committed by Detenu cannot be considered for the purpose of detention;

(iv) The incident dated 9th March 2022 had occurred inside the house. The incident in no manner affects maintenance of public order. Reliance is placed on the decision of Supreme Court in the case of Pushkar Mukherjee and others Vs. The State of West Bengal AIR-1970-SC-852;

(v) The order of detention has been issued against Petitioner considering the alleged activities of bootlegging, which is reflected in ground 4(a) of the grounds of dete