JUDGMENT
M.L. Dudhat, J.
1. By this petition the petitioner has challenged his detention under sub-sec. (2) of S. 3 of the National Security Act, 1980 (hereinafter referred to for the sake of brevity as ‘the said Act’) dated 14th of 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-sec. (2) of S. 3 of the said Act. However, this order of detention was revoked by the Government on 11th of January, 1991. Thereafter, on 14th of Jan. 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 hand Mr. Page, the learned counsel, appearing on behalf of respondents Nos. 1 and 2 supported by Mr. Patwardhan, the learned counsel, appearing on behalf of the Union of India have strenuously contended that there is no substance whatsoever 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 his 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 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 tipl 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 negligence 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. 7859.
Sd/-
Medical Officer,
Bandra (W),
Bombay 400050."
In can be seen that the bracketed portion of this certificate is not found in its Marathi translation. Moreover, injury No. 2 ‘MA (Lt.) ring finger, Proximal Phalymx’ is translated as minor abrasion on left ring finger. Relying on these discrepancies Mr. Tripathy contended that in view of these discrepancies the right of the petitioner to make an effective representation against his detention was prejudicially affected and the impugned order of detention has, therefore, become invalid. In contrast, the learned counsel on behalf of the respondents submitted that these discrepancies are not on any material point between the original document in English and its translation in Marathi. Moreover, the bracketed portion in the said medical certificate in English though omitted in its Marathi translation, it has no relevance whatsoever with the grounds, of detention and as such the said portion in innocuous and, therefore, the omission of the same has in no way effected the right of the petitioner to make an effective representation against his detention. According to them, these discrepancies between the certificate in English and its translation in Marathi are in fact no discrepancies as it is clear that whatever stated in the certificate in English in abreviation form is translated in Marathi in elaborated form just to convey the meaning of the said certificate. For example, in the said certificate in English Injury No. 2 ‘MA (Lt.) ring finger’ is translated as ‘minor abrasion on left ring finger’. After going through the medical certificate in English and its translation in Marathi prima facie we find no discrepancy between these documents which could affect the right of the petitioner to make an effective representation against his detention. We will once again refer to these discrepancies in the subsequent portion of this judgment in the context of the various decisions of the Supreme Court and this Court. The second discrepancy pointed out on behalf of the petitioner is between the medical certificate dated 17th January, 1990, issued by the medical Officer in English which is at page 98 of the paper book and its translation in Marathi supplied to the detenu. The contents of the said certificate in English are as under :
“Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay
904199. Date : 17/1/90.
This is to certify that Pralhad Wagh was treated in this hospital out patient department as ……../admitted in this hospital from 23-9-89 and discharged on………..
He/She was brought to this hospital by P.C. No. 23026/8 and was suffering from the following injuries :
1. IW MHa wopet of left arm M. 15 on M.S.
2. IW on ext aspect of forean. 8-9 MP.
3. 8-W. On chest L neck 4 Cm. dupplian shape.
4. Intested Loogs seen outside the abt. cavity B.W. about 5 bem x 25 am.
5. IW. on Left arm. 5 cmp. Zune x MD.
6. IW x 3 one the on P/enjet. Left on (P).
The above injuries were sustained by him/her as per his/her statement, accidentally during the performing of his/her legitimate duties and are/were not due to his/her own negligence 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.
O.P.D. No. 26132. Casualty No. 7961.
Sd/-
Medical Officer.
Bandra (W),
Bombay 400050.”
The bracketed portion in the certificate in English is not translated in Marathi. Moreover, in the certificate in English six injuries are mentioned by using only their abbreviated forms while in their translation in Marathi such abbreviations are not used. In addition to the above, there are discrepancies in translating these injuries except Injury No. 5. In view of the above, it was argued on behalf of the petitioner that these discrepancies have affected the right of the petitioner to make an effective representation against his detention. On the other hand, it was submitted on behalf of the respondents that in the vernacular version of the medical certificate in English the injuries are described in order to enable the detenu to understand the nature of the injuries and, therefore, their abbreviated forms are not used. It is, however, fairly conceded by the learned counsel on behalf of the respondents that in the description of Injuries Nos. 1 and 2 there is a typographical error whereby instead of word ‘MD’ words ‘M.s.’ and ‘MP’ are used respectively. However, the said typographical error is corrected in the translated version by describing the said injuries as ‘muscle deep injuries’. After hearing both the sides we are of the opinion that these discrepancies are of very minor nature which in no way could affect prejudicially the right of the petitioner to make an effective representation against his detention. The other discrepancy pointed out by Mr. Tripathy is in respect of the description of Injury No. 1 in the aforesaid certificate. In its Marathi version the dimension of the injury is described as 4 Cm./1.50 Cm. muscle deep. However, in the certificate in English while describing the dimension ‘4 CM.’ is not mentioned and dimension ‘1.5 Cm.’ described in vernacular is mentioned as M. 15. There are also discrepancies between Injury Nos. 1, 4 and 6 in the certificate dated 17th January, 1990, and its vernacular version. However, to what extent these discrepancies could effect the right of the petitioner to make an effective representation against his detention, we will discuss them later on.
4. Then the discrepancies pointed out on behalf of the petitioner are in respect of the medical certificate dated 21st December, 1989, the contents of which run thus :
“Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay
No. 004116. Date : 21/12/89.
This is to certify that Jairam Amrao Waghela treated in this hospital Out-patient Department as ………./admitted in this hospital and discharged on ………
He/she was brought to this hospital by P.C. No. 15473/8 and was suffering from the following injuries.
Cut injury on th. abd. from unlilcous to L. Line chest. Out dup injury on the four fingers at L. hand.
Injury L. index finger. stch injury L. side Aldn.
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 negligence as disobedience of orders.
His/her injuries were such as to prevent him/her from attending him/her duties.
O.P.D. No. …………….
Indoor No. …………….
Casualty No. 10056.
Sd/-
Medical Officer.”
In this certificate also the bracketed portion is omitted in the translated copy supplied to the petitioner. We have already indicated in regard to the other two certificates that these bracketed portions are innocuous from the point of view of making an effective representation by the petitioner against his detention and, therefore, we do not wish to repeat the same discussion over again in respect of this medical certificate.
5. The learned counsel on behalf of the petitioner then pointed out the discrepancies in the medical certificate at page-146 of the paper book. The contents of the said certificate are as under :
“Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay
No. 1000905. Date 11/9.
This is to certify that Sudha N. Desai was treated in this Hospital out-patient Department as Casualty admitted in this hospital from 22-12-89 and discharged on ………..
He/she was brought to this hospital by P.C. No. 5905/DD and was suffering from the following injuries.
CLW R. Penetal Sculp. 1 m. 1/2 MD.
No. Clinically …………
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 negligence 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.
O.P.D. No. …………….
Indoor No. …………….
Casualty No. 10169.
Sd/-.
Medical Officer.”
In the said medical certificate in English the date mentioned is ’11/9.’ while in the translated copy the date mentioned is ’18/1/90′. Further, though in the translated copy there is a specific mention that ‘there is no fracture of bone’ the said reference is not found in the certificate in English. It was further pointed out on behalf of the petitioner that while describing the injuries in English the unit of measurement is not mentioned while in Marathi translation the unit of measurement for measuring the would is ‘foot’ and ‘inch’. Then the next discrepancy pointed out is the absence of the bracketed portion in the translated copy which is also similar to the other three certificates and we do not think it necessary to repeat the same discussion over again.
6. Then the next lacuna pointed out by the learned counsel on behalf of the petitioner is between the application for reduction of bail amount in English dated 11th of April, 1990, at page 138 of the paper book and its Marathi – translation supplied to the petitioner – detenu.
“In the Court of Ld. Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate’s 19th Court At Esplanade, Bombay.
C.R. No. 864/89 of Kandivali P. Stn. C.C. No. 118/P/1990.
The State (D.C.B. C.I.D.) Complainant v. Nandkumar Laxman Desai, Accused.
Application for Reduction of Bail : May it Please Your Worship :
The accused above named was arrested by D.C.B. C.I.D. on 1st January, 1990, in the above case and this Hon’ble Court was pleased to order the accused to be released on bail in the sum of Rs. 3000/- with one surety in the like amount.
That the accused is in custody since his arrest and accused is not in a position to avail of the bail as he is a poor man.
That police have completed the investigation and have filed the charge sheet in this Hon’ble Court and no purpose will be served by detaining the accused in custody. Accused shall remain present before this Hon’ble Court on the date given to face the trial.
It is therefore humbly requested to reduce the bail amount in this case to Rs. 1500/- in lieu of the earlier bail order.
And for this act of kindness the accused shall be grateful as in duty bound every pray.
Bombay, Dated : 11th April, 1990.
Sd/-.
Advocate for accused.
ORDER
Bail is reduced to Rs. 2000/-.
Sd/-.
Addl. Ch. M.M.
19th Court, Bombay.”
In the translation in Marathi on the left hand side it is stated in vernacular that bail of Rs. 3000/- and one surety in like amount. Sections 366, 394, 397, 114 of I.P.C. Arrested on 1-1-90. For orders. Sd/- 11-4-90. This portion is conspicuously absent in the bail application in English dated 11th of April, 1990. Further, on the right hand side of the Marathi translation there is an endorsement ‘Heard advocate. Read application.’ This portion is also not found in the application and the order thereon in English. However, in our opinion, these negligible discrepancies cannot go to the root of the matter depriving the petitioner of making an effective representation against his detention. Even the endorsement in vernacular about the earlier order of bail is in fact mentioned by the petitioner himself in his application. It is, therefore, clear that the time of preferring his earlier application for bail the petitioner knew very well what were the charges against him and, therefore, the said discrepancies pointed out by the learned counsel are innocuous and the same have in no way prejudicially affected the petitioner to make an effective representation against his detention.
7. Now we shall discuss the case law cited by the learned counsel on both the sides. They have cited a number of judgments of this court as well as the Supreme Court. Mr. Tripathy firstly placed reliance on the ruling of the Supreme Court in Kirit Kumar Chamanlal Kundaliya v. Union of India, . Para 12 of the said judgment runs thus :
“The matter does not rest here but two additional points which have been taken in the writ petition before us are sufficient to void the order of detention passed against the detenu. In the first place, it was submitted that the endorsement on the file produced before us by the Government shows that the documents concerned were examined not by the detaining authority but by the Secretary and there is nothing to show that the note or endorsement of the Secretary was placed and approved by the detaining authority. In these circumstances, therefore, it must be held that there was no decision by the detaining authority that the documents were relevant. It was, however, submitted by Mr. Phadke that the documents concerned were merely referred to in the grounds of detention but did not form the basis of the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority at the time when it passed the order of detention. It was, however, conceded by Mr. Phadke that before the grounds were served on the petitioner, the documents were placed before the detaining authority and were, therefore, referred to in the grounds of detention. It is manifest therefore that the subjective satisfaction could only be ascertained from or reflected in the grounds of the order of detention passed against the detenu otherwise without giving the grounds the mere subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority would make the order of detention incomplete and ineffective. Once the documents are referred to in the grounds of detention it becomes the bounden duty of the detaining authority to supply the same to the detenu as part of the grounds or pari passu the grounds of detention. There is no particular charm in the expressions ‘relied on’, ‘referred to’ or ‘based on’ because ultimately all these expressions signify one thing, namely, that the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority has been arrived at on the documents mentioned in the grounds of detention. The question whether the grounds have been referred to, relied on or based on is merely a matter of describing the nature of the grounds. Even so in the case of Ram Chandra A. Kamat v. Union of India a three judge bench decision of this Court to which one to us (Fazal Ali J.) was a party, clearly held that even the documents referred to in the grounds of detention have to be furnished to the detenu.”
8. Relying on the aforesaid observations of the Supreme Court, Mr. Tripathy argued that if the documents are referred to in the grounds of detention, it becomes bounden duty of the detaining authority to supply the said documents to the detenu as a part of the grounds or pari passu the grounds of detention and, therefore, it is incumbent upon the detaining authority not only to supply the documents referred to in the grounds of detention, but also to supply the true version of the same, as in this case the petitioner is not in a position to understand English. Not only this, but even if there is any discrepancy in the translated copies supplied to him of the documents relied upon by the detaining authority then virtually it amounts to non-supply of the documents and, therefore, on the basis of the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court in the above decision, the impugned order of detention has become void.
9. Mr. Tripathy then cited the judgment of the Supreme Court in Khudiram Das v. State of West Bengal, . In this case the Supreme Court observed that when it is incumbent upon the detaining authority to supply all the materials which have been taken into account by it in passing the order of detention, it is also incumbent upon the detaining authority to supply the detenu the true and correct translations of the documents relied upon by it. Relying upon the aforesaid observations it is contended on behalf of the petitioner that since it is incumbent upon the authority to supply all the materials which have been taken in account by the detaining authority in passing the impugned order of detention, there it is also incumbent upon the detaining authority to supply the petitioner true and correct translations of the documents relied upon by it and the non-supply of the true and correct version of all the documents relied upon by the detaining authority to the petitioner amounts to snatching away his right to make an effective representation against his detention and, therefore, the impugned order of detention has been vitiated.
10. The next decision of the Supreme Court cited by Mr. Tripathy is in the case of Manjit Singh Grewal alias Gogi v. Union of India 1990 (supp.) SCC 59. In this case the detenu asked for copies of the documents which were admittedly in possession of the union of India and the Union of India supplied the copies of those documents to the detenu, but they were not legible. The Supreme Court held that by not providing the legible copies of the documents sought for by the detenu the safeguards provided by the Constitution have not been followed and the order of detention had become illegal. In this case the Supreme Court also observed that when the detenu asked for certain copies of the documents in the possession of the detaining authority and the detaining authority supplied the illegible copies then it is not necessary to go into the question whether the documents were relevant or material as the detaining authority failed to observe the safeguards provided by the Constitution. Mr. Tripathy’s contention is that in view of the above observations the non-supply of the true and correct translations of the documents relied upon by the detaining authority to the petitioner, the detaining authority had in fact flouted the safeguards provided by the Constitution and, therefore, the impugned order of detention has become illegal and void.
11. The next authority of Mr. Tripathy is in the case of Mrs. Tsering Dolkar v. The Administrator, Union Territory of Delhi, . In this case the detenu was a Ladakhi who understood Ladakhi language only and he could hardly write, read or converse in Tibetan language. His wife was a Tibetan and was conversant with Tibetan as well as English languages. The grounds of detention and the copies of the documents supplied to the detenu were not in English, but in Tibetan language. It was contended on behalf of the detenu that since the documents were supplied to him in Tibetan language he had been denied fair and adequate opportunity of representing his case against the detention order. The Supreme Court observed that in the matter of preventive detention the test is not one of prejudice, but one of strict compliance with the provisions of the Act and when there is failure to comply with those requirements, it becomes difficult to sustain the order of detention. Relying on these observations it was argued on behalf of the petitioner that it is incumbent upon the authority to supply the grounds of detention and the documents relied upon by it in the language known to the petitioner and in this case there is a discrepancy between the original documents and the translated copies supplied to the detenu. According to him, this discrepancy amounts to the failure on the part of the detaining authority to the strict compliance with the provisions of Art. 225 of the Constitution of India. In view of the above, according to him, the impugned order of detention has become illegal, void and inoperative as the same is in violation of the provisions of (Art. 22(5)) of the Constitution of India.
12. Mr. Tripathy then placed reliance on the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court in Ibrahim Ahmed Batti v. State of Gujarat, . In this case the translated copies of the statements and other documents relied upon by the detaining authority were supplied to the detenu subsequently as there was shortage of persons capable of translating the documents in Urdu language. The Supreme Court held that this delay amounted to violation of the provisions of Art. 22(5) of the Constitution of India vitiating the order of detention. However, in this case it is not the grievance of the detenu that he was not supplied along with the grounds of detention the translated copies of all the documents relied upon by the detaining authority and, therefore, this authority is not with respect, relevant for our purpose.
13. Mr. Tripathy also relied upon certain unreported rulings of this Court. In Criminal Writ Petn. No. 913 of 1990 a Division Bench of this Court (Coram S. W. Puranik and M. E. Saldanha JJ.) decided on 24th January, 1991, set aside the order of detention on the ground of supply of illegible copies of the documents relied upon by the detaining authority. This Court observed in para 5 of the said judgment that the statements of the co-accused are vital documents and illegible portions of the said vital documents have materially affected the right of an effective representation of the detenu. Therefore, the test laid down in this case is that the illegible documents must be vital documents so as to materially affect the right of an effective representation of the detenu. The next judgment of the Division Bench of this Court (Coram S. W. Puranik and H. F. Saldanha JJ.) cited on behalf of the petitioner is in Criminal Writ Petn. No. 994 of 1990 decided on 6th of March, 1991. In this case the Arabic translations of the documents relied upon by the detaining authority and supplied to the detenu were cut on the margin on the right side and hence the said Arabic translations of the documents were not readable. This Court held that the court is not going into the aspect of the relevancy or otherwise of the out portions. Incomplete document was supplied to the detenu instead of complete document which was relied upon by the detaining authority. Whether the cut portion is relevant or not is a matter between the detaining authority and the detenu who is to make a representation against his detention. The observation of this Court is that by furnishing to the detenu incomplete document relied upon by the detaining authority it has caused material prejudice to the right of the detenu to make an effective representation and, therefore, the order of detention was set aside. Mr. Tripathy then relied on the decision of this Court in the case of Shekhar Shantaram Pawaskar v. V. K. Saraf, 1990 Cri LJ 138. In this case Marathi translation of the medical certificate supplied to the detenu was found wholly inaccurate and incomplete, the original certificate which was in English. In this case this Court has not applied the test as to whether the documents have materially caused prejudice to the detenu or likely to affect the right of his effective representation against his detention, but held that the translated copy of the document relied upon in the grounds of detention was wholly incomplete and inaccurate and, therefore, the same amounted to non-supply of the documents relied upon by the detaining authority resulting in violation of the provisions of Art. 22(5) of the Constitution of India.
14. As against the above authorities relied upon by the learned counsel on behalf of the petitioner, Mr. Page and Mr. Patwardhan, on behalf of the respondents cited certain authorities of the Supreme Court as well as this Court in support of their contentions that the impugned order of detention is legal and perfectly valid. In Prakash Chandra Mehta v. Commissioner and Secretary, Government of Kerala, . Para 74 of the said judgment runs thus :
“In the instant case, the ground of detention is the satisfaction of the detaining authority that with a view of preventing the detenu from acting in any manner prejudicial to the conservation or augmentation of foreign exchange or with a view to preventing the detenu from, inter alia, dealing in smuggled goods otherwise than by engaging in transporting or concealing or keeping the smuggled goods, or engaging in transporting or concealing or keeping smuggled goods the detention of the detenu is necessary. This satisfaction was arrived at as inferences from several factors. These have been separately mentioned. One of them is the contention (confession ?) but this ground was taken into consideration without taking note of the retraction made thereafter. But the inference of the satisfaction was drawn from several factors which have been enumerated before. We have to examine whether even if the facts stated in the confession are completely ignored, then the inferences can still be drawn from other independent and objective facts mentioned in this case, namely the fact of seizure after search of 60 gold biscuits from the suit case of the daughter in the presence of the father which indubitably belonged to the father and admitted by him to belong to him for which no explanation has been give and secondly the seizure of the papers connected with other groups and organisations – Pratap Sait and others to whom gold has been sold by the father are relevant grounds from which an inference can reasonably be drawn for the satisfaction of the detaining authority for detaining the detenus for the purpose of S. 3(1)(iii) and 3(1)(iv). We are of the opinion that the impugned order cannot be challenged merely by the rejection of the inference drawn from confession. The same argument was presented in a little difference shade namely the fact of retraction should have been considered by the detaining authority and the Court does not know that had that been taken into consideration, what conclusion the detaining authority would have arrived at. This contention cannot be accepted. We are not concerned with the sufficiency of the grounds. We are concerned whether there are relevant materials on which a reasonable belief or conviction could have been entertained by the detaining authority on the grounds mentioned in S. 3(1) of the said Act. Whether other grounds should have been taken into consideration or not is not relevant at the stage of the passing of the detention order. This contention, therefore, cannot be accepted. If that is the position then in view of S. 5A of the Act there was sufficient material to sustain this ground of detention.”
15. The Supreme Court in the above case observed that there was sufficient other material in the grounds of detention after excluding the disputed defective material. Relying on these observations of the Supreme Court, the learned counsel on behalf of the respondents contended that after excluding the documents challenged by the petitioner, if there is sufficient other material to sustain the grounds of detention, then in that case the order of detention remained unaffected and is, therefore, perfectly valid. It is, therefore, clear that where the detention is based on several grounds and on several pieces of evidence and after excluding the disputed and defective material if there is sufficient other material that would be good enough to come to a prima facie belief that the detention of the detenu was necessary as the procedural safeguards deemed to have been complied with so far as practicably by the detaining authority.
16. The learned counsel on behalf of the respondents then cited another unreported ruling of the Supreme Court in Writ Petn. (Criminal) No. 682 of 1986, in the case of Sheopujan Prasad v. Union of India, where the Supreme Court considered the effect of omission of the detaining authority to supply the detenu the Hindu version of certain documents in English. The Supreme Court held that since the contents of the documents have been substantially referred to in the grounds of detention prepared in Hindi in so far as those contents affected the petitioner, non-supply of such documents does not invalidate the order of detention. This ratio laid down by the Supreme Court is followed by a Division Bench of this Court in Criminal Writ Petn. No. 445 of 1990 (Coram : S. P. Kurdukar and E. D. D. S. De. Silva JJ.) decided on 10th of August, 1990. Then the learned counsel on behalf of the respondents referred to the decision of the Supreme Court in A. Alangarasamy v. State of Tamil Nadu, . In this case the contention on behalf of the detenu was that there was variation between Tamil and English versions of the grounds of detention served on the petitioner. After analysing the original documents and their translations in Tamil language, the Supreme Court held that the two versions viz. the original English document and the Tamil translation of the same are not so different as to cause any prejudice to the detenu. Then the learned counsel referred to an unreported decision of the Division Bench of this Court (Coram S. P. Kurdukar and Dr. E. D. D. S. De. Silva JJ.) in Criminal Writ Petn. No. 530 of 1990 decided on 31st of August, 1990. The contention raised on behalf of the detenu was that the translation of the receipt in English furnished to the detenu is partly illegible. After going through the original document and its translation the Division Bench held that the detenu was sufficiently informed and communicated the name of the jeweller and, therefore, no prejudice was caused to the detenu. The Division Bench, therefore, upheld the order of detention by applying the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of A. Alangarasamy (1987 Cri LJ 1887) (Supra). The learned counsel on behalf of the respondents also relied upon another unreported decision of the Division Bench of this Court (Coram : S. P. Kurdukar and Dr. E. D. D. S. Da. Silva JJ.) in Criminal Writ Petn. No. 546 of 1990, decided on 22nd August, 1990. In all these decisions this court followed the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Prakash Chandra Mehta v. Commissioner and Secretary. Government of Kerala (1986 Cri LJ 786), and the unreported judgment of the Supreme Court in Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 682 of 1986, Sheopujan Prasad v. Union of India and upheld the order of detention in those case.
17. In reply to the submissions made on behalf of the respondents Mr. Tripathy submitted that in the matter of preventive detention the test is not one of prejudice, but one of strict compliance with the provisions of the Act and when there is failure on the part of the detaining authority to comply with the requirements of the Act, then the impugned order of detention is liable to be struck down. He further pointed out that the decision of the Supreme Court in Prakash Chandra Mehta’s case (1986 Cri LJ 786) is in peculiar circumstances of that case and, therefore, the same cannot be applied to the facts and circumstances of this case. However, in para 83 of the said judgment the Supreme Court concluded the judgment by observing that in the back-ground of the facts and circumstances of that case, the procedural safeguards have been complied with as far as practicable and there were no merits in the fancied grievance of the detenus. He then pointed out para 12 of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Mrs. Tsering Dolkar (1987 Cri LJ 998) wherein it was observed :-
“We must make it clear that the law as laid down by this Court clearly indicates that in the matter of prevention detention, the test is not one of prejudice, but one of strict compliance with the provisions of the Act and when there is a failure to comply with those requirements, it becomes difficult to sustain the order.”
18. It is, therefore, contended on behalf of the petitioner that when the incorrect translated copies were supplied to the detenu, there is a failure on the part of the detaining authority to comply with the provisions of the Act and on this ground alone the impugned order of detention is liable to be struck down. However, we cannot agree with Mr. Tripathy. It is true that in the above case the Supreme Court has observed that in the matter of preventive detention, the test is not one of prejudice, but one of strict compliance with the provisions of the Act. However, these observations are to be understood in the facts and circumstances of that case and we have already pointed out in the earlier part of this judgment the facts of that case. In that case the detenu was knowing only one language i.e. Ladakhi. However, the documents relied upon by the detaining authority were translated in Tibatan language and supplied to the detenu. The Supreme Court, therefore, held in that case that the requirement of the law is that the detenu has to be informed about the grounds of detention in the language which he understands and since the detaining authority failed to supply the translations of the documents in Ladakhi language to the detenu there was non-compliance of the provisions of the Act. There is no dispute that the detaining authority has to supply the grounds of detention and the material relied upon in the grounds of detention in the language known to the detenu and if there is failure on the part of the detaining authority to supply the translations of the documents in the language known to the detenu, the detention order is bound to be vitiated as the same is passed in violation of the provisions of Art. 22(5) of the Constitution of India. In that case the Addl. Solicitor General on behalf of the Union of India contended that though the petitioner was not knowing Tibetan language, his wife was conversant with English and Tibetan languages and, therefore, no prejudice was caused to the petitioner for making an effective representation against his detention. It was in his context that the Supreme Court observed that in the matter of preventive detention, the test is not one of prejudice, but one of strict compliance with the provisions of the Act. In our opinion, therefore, that case is clearly distinguishable from the facts and circumstances of the present case. In the case before us it is not the grievance of the petitioner that he was not supplied with the copies of the documents or the grounds of detention in the language known to him, but it is the case of the petitioner that there are certain discrepancies between the contents of the documents and their translated copies in Marathi which were relied upon by the detaining authority. Therefore, in order to see whether such discrepancies in those five documents amount to non-compliance of the provisions of the Act one has to apply the test as to whether in the circumstances of this case these discrepancies have in any way prejudicially affected the right of the petitioner to make an effective representation against his detention. We have already pointed out above that the Supreme Court in the last para of its judgment in Prakash Chandra Mehta (1986 Cri LJ 786) concluded that in the facts and circumstances of that case the procedural safeguards have been complied with as far as practicable and, therefore, we have to see whether these discrepancies in these five documents pointed out by the learned counsel on behalf of the petitioner are such that the court should come to the conclusion that the respondents failed to observe the procedural safe guards in the present case.
19. From the aforesaid ratio laid down by the Supreme Court as well as this Court the following propositions of law emerge :
1) The detaining authority has to pass the detention order in strict compliance with the provisions of Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India. 2) The detaining authority must communicate the grounds on which the order of detention has been passed and along with the grounds of detention the detaining authority must also supply the copies of all the documents relied upon by it so as to enable the detenu to make an effective representation against his detention. 3) The detenu has to be informed about the grounds of detention in the language which he understands. The detenu must also be supplied with the true translations of the documents relied upon by the detaining authority in the language in which the detenu is conversant. 5) If the detaining authority fails to comply with the above requirements, then the detention order becomes invalid as the same is passed without following the procedural safeguards laid down under the provisions of Art. 22(5) of the Constitution of India. 6) While supplying the translated copies of the documents to the detenu in the language known to him if the translation is wholly incomplete or inaccurate, the same is likely to cause prejudice to the detenu to make an effective representation against his detention and, therefore, this also amounts to violation of the provisions of Art. 22(5) of the Constitution of India. 7) Under S. 5A of the said Act when a person has been detained in pursuance of an order of detention under sub-sec. (1) of S. 3 of the said Act on two or more grounds. Such an order of detention shall be deemed to have been passed separately on each of such grounds. That means if an order of detention is passed on more than one ground and one of those grounds becomes defective, still the order of detention remains valid as the said detention order is deemed to have been passed on the remaining ground or grounds excluding the defective ground. 8) If there are discrepancies between the original documents relied upon by the detaining authority and the copies of the documents or translations supplied to the detenu in order to enable him to make an effective representation and if there discrepancies are of a very minor nature not connected with any of the grounds of detention, then the same have to be ignored. 9) If the said discrepancies are with reference to the grounds of detention and are such so as to affect the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority, then the order of detention is liable to be struck down as the same are in violation of the provisions of Art. 22(5) of the Constitution of India, provided, however, the court comes to the conclusion that after excluding the defective material viz. supply of defective translated copies of the documents as in this case or illegible, incomplete, torn etc. copies of the documents, the remaining material relied upon is sufficient for the detaining authority to come to a subjective satisfaction to issue the order of detention against the detenu, then in that case the order of detention is perfectly valid in spite of the defective documents supplied to the detenu.
20. Therefore, as regards the maintainability of the impugned order of detention we have to consider the arguments advanced by both the sides in the light of the aforesaid legal principles. As discussed above, in this case the learned counsel on behalf of the petitioner has relied upon the five documents to fortify his contention that the defective translated copies of the documents were supplied to the petitioner which, according to him, have virtually snatched away his right to make an effective representation against his detention. We have already expressed our opinion in regard to these documents that the discrepancies between these original documents and their translations in Marathi are insignificant, inconsequential and innocuous for the reasons stated above. These discrepancies in the documents are not of such a nature which could in any way affect the right of the petitioner to make an effective representation against his detention or is likely to affect the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority in one way or the other. In our view, therefore, though these discrepancies are large in number are not such on the basis of which it can be said that the right of the petitioner to make an effective representation against his detention is snatched away on account of these defects in the documents. Assuming for a while that the translations of the certificates in the case before us are defective and these defects are such that they can affect the petitioner of his right to make an effective representation against his detention, still in our opinion, the impugned order of detention is sustainable on the material other than the defective material. In the grounds of detention five specific incidents are relied upon by the detaining authority. The first incident runs thus :
“(I) On 24-8-1989 at about 9-30 p.m. Amrutlal Laddha Maru, the proprietor of a wine shop known as ‘Pankaj Wines’ situated at the junction of 16th Road, and C.D. Marg, Khar (W), Bombay-400052, put cash of Rs. 14,600/- in 5 Khakhi colour envelopes which envelopes were placed in a white plastic bag and kept on the seat next to the driver’s seat of the Maruti Car No. MAJ-6007. As Amrutlal Laddha Maru was about to start the car, your associates, Zakirali Akbarali Shaikh and Abdul Rahim Razak Shaikh accosted him. Your associate Zakirali Akbarali Shaikh who was armed with a chopper pulled Amrutlal Laddha Maru out of the car. Amrutlal Laddha Maru caught hold of the chopper and sustained injuries to his left hand little finger. At the same time, your other associate Abdul Rahim Razak Shaikh pointed a pistol at Amrutlal Laddha Maru when he left the chopper saying ‘mere ko chhodo gadi mein paise hai’ and started running shouting ‘bachao bachao’. Your said two associates also threatened Lalsingh Gangaram Thapa, the watchman of Amrutlal Maru. Your associate, Abdul Rahim Razak Shaikh removed the white plastic bag, containing Rs. 14,600/- belonging to Amrutlal Maru from the car and thereafter both your said associates then absconded. After Amrutlal Maru was treated at the Shabos Hospital for the injuries sustained by him, he initially lodged a complaint at the Khar Police Station which was registered vide C.R. No. 453 of 1989 for offence under Ss. 392-394-397-34 I.P.C. read with S. 25 Arms Act, which was subsequently transferred to D.C.B. C.I.D. Bombay vide their C.R. No. 3/90. Your said two associates were arrested and identified by Amrutlal Maru.
On certain reliable information you were arrested on 23-12-1989 at about 14-30 hrs. near Chawl No. 225, Motilal Nagar No. 1, Goregaon, Bombay and searched in the presence of two independent witnesses. During your personal search a country made revolver with 6 live cartridges and 14 other loose cartridges were recovered from you and seized under a Panchnama.
While you were in police custody you volunteered in the presence of independent witnesses to point out the chopper used by your associate Zakirali in the Khar Police Station C.R. No. 453/89, pursuant to your voluntary statement a chopper was recovered and seized by the police under a panchanama. The complainant Amrutlal Maru identified the chopper as the one used by your associate, Zakirali and the pistol received from you on 23-12-1989 as the one used by your associate Abdul Rahim while committing the offence registered vide Khar Police Station C.R. No. 453/89 thus connecting you with the said offence. A separate offence was registered against you by D.C.B. C.I.D. for possession of the weapons vide L.A.C. No. 173/89 for offence under S. 3 read with S. 25 Arms Act. You were granted bail in Khar Police Station C.R. No. 453/89 and D.C.B. C.I.D., L.A.C. No. 173/89, in the sum of Rs. 5,000/- with one surety in the like amount or cash bail of Rs. 5,000/- in each of the two cases.
In C.R. No. 453/89 on application made on your behalf the bail was reduced to Rs. 3,000/- and you have availed yourself bail facility on 25-5-90.
In L.A.C. No. 173/89 you have availed yourself bail facility on 25-5-90.”
21. In the above incident the medical certificate in respect of Amrutlal Ladha Maru is dated 9th April, 1990. We have already pointed out above that the discrepancies between the original medical certificate in English and its Marathi translation are innocuous, but even if we accept this certificate as defective one, still if the incident as alleged in the grounds of detention is taken as a whole, there is material to infer that the petitioner was involved in dacoity and secondly one of his associates used a revolver in furtherance of their common intention to rob the complainant, Amrutlal Laddha. Further, in the personal search of the detenu when he was arrested on 23rd December, 1989, a country made revolver with six live cartridges and 14 other loose cartridges were found on his person and subsequently the chopper was also recovered at his instance. Therefore, this material relied upon by the detaining authority itself is sufficient to come to a subjective satisfaction for the issuance of the impugned detention order.
22. The fourth ground mentioned in the grounds of detention is as under :
“(IV) On 22-12-1989 at a about 11 a.m. while your wife, Sudha Nandu Desai was walking along ‘Macchi Market’ at Bazar Road, Bandra (W), Bombay, you arrived there in a rickshaw and threateningly said to her : “Bhenchod Tujhya Aaichi gand, policeana sang me tula marle, tula kay karayache te kar”. So saying you dealt a knife blow on the head of Sudha and she sustained bleeding injuries. You then sat in the waiting rickshaw and sped away. On seeing the knife attack on Sudha the members of the public on the road got frightened and began to run helter skelter. Sudha was treated at the Bhabha Hospital for the treatment of the injuries sustained by her. The Bandra Police Station registered a complaint against you vide C.R. No. 890/89 for offence under S. 334, IPC. You were absconding after committing the crime. You were arrested on 23-12-1989 in Khar Police Station C.R. No. 453/89 referred to in Ground No. 1 above and subsequently shown arrested in the present case no. 7-2-90 with the permission of the Addl. Chief M.M. 9th Court, Bandra, as you were then in jail custody.
The Ld. Addl. Ch. M.M. 9th Court, Bandra, Bombay, ordered you to be released on Rs. 1000/- with one surety in the like amount.
You have availed yourself of the bail facility in this case.”
23. It is an admitted position that no document pertaining to this ground is challenged in this writ petition. Looking to this incident dated 22nd December, 1989, we find that there was sufficient material before the detaining authority to come to a subjective satisfaction for the issuance of the impugned order of detention against the petitioner by invoking the provisions of S. 5A of the said Act.
24. Ground No. (5) relied upon by the detaining authority is as follows :
“(V) On 1-1-1990 while you were in the custody of the D.C.B. C.I.D. in C.R. No. 4/90 and Khar Police Station C.R. 453/89 referred to in Ground No. I above you volunteered in the presence of two independent witnesses to point out the place where you had kept a revolver and 10 Cartridges. In pursuance to the voluntary statement you led the independent witnesses and the police to the resident of one Smt. Sunita Kasare at Goregaon, Bombay, from where one country made revolver and 10 live cartridges were recovered and seized under a panchanama. The D.C.B. C.I.D. registered a case vide L.A.C. No. 2/90 for offence under S. 3 read with 25 of the Arms Act and you were shown arrested in the present case. You have been granted bail in the sum of Rs. 3000/- with one surety in the like amount or cash bail of Rs. 2000/-.
You have availed yourself the bail facility in this case.”
25. This ground is assailed on the ground that there is a discrepancy between the application in English for the reduction of the bail amount relied upon by the detaining authority and its Marathi translation supplied to the petitioner. We have already pointed out above that the said discrepancy is innocuous. Not only this, but even excluding the portion of the ground pertaining to the said application, there is independent material which was sufficient for the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority to issue the impugned order of detention. It is stated in the said ground that on 1st of January, 1990, a country made revolver and ten live cartridges – were recovered in the presence of panchas at the behest of the petitioner. Considering the entire material on record we find that the arguments advanced by Mr. Tripathy do not hold much water that by supplying the defective translated copies of the five documents vitiated the impugned order of detention and, therefore, the same is liable to be struck down.
26. In the result, this petition fails and the same is dismissed. Rule stands discharged.
27. Petition dismissed.