JUDGMENT
Pratibha Upasani, J.
1. Through this criminal writ petition preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner-detenu Parsha @ Rajendrasingh Chandansingh Mander, has Impugned the detention order dated 21.7.2000, passed by the first respondent, Shri M. N. Singh, Commissioner of Police, Greater Bombay, detaining the detenu under sub-section (1) of section 3 of the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords, Bootleggers, Drug Offenders and Dangerous Persons Act. 1981 (No. LV of 1981) (Amendment 1996), hereinafter referred to as the “M.P.D.A. Act”).
The detention order along with the grounds of detention, which are also dated 21.7.2000, was served on the detenu on 25.7.2000 and their true copies are annexed as Annexures ‘A’ and ‘B’ respectively to this writ petition.
2. A perusal of the grounds of detention (Annexure ‘B’) would show that the impugned detention order is founded on one C. R., namely, C. R. No. 150 of 2000 under Section 397 of the Indian Penal Code r/w 37(1)(a) of the Bombay Police Act, registered against the detenu at Antop Hill Police Station on the basis of a complaint lodged by Shri Hasmukh Kanji Gadda and two in camera statements, namely of witness ‘A’ recorded on 9.5.2000 and witness ‘B’ recorded on 10.5.2000.
Since, in our view, the details relating to the said C.R. and the in camera statements are not relevant to the disposal of this petition, we are not adverting to them.
3. We have heard learned Counsel for the parties. Although, in this petition, Mr. Tripathi, learned Counsel for the petitioner-detenu, has pleaded a large number of grounds numbering from ground 6(A) to 6(G), this petition deserves to succeed on ground 6(G) alone, and hence, we are not referring to other ground’s of challenge raised in the petition.
4. Ground 6(G) in short is that the Impugned detention order, grounds of detention and the documents of compilation in English and Marathi along with their Hindi translation were furnished to the detenu. It is averred in the said ground that the detenu knows Hindi very well and is able to read, right and understand Hindi only. It is further averred that since the detenu has been furnished with Hindi translation, he has relied on that Hindi translation. It is further averred by the detenu in the said ground that the Hindi translation of the grounds of detention and certain documents are not true translation of their counter part portion in English and Marathi. The petitioner-detenu has further submitted that furnishing wrong translation
amounts to non-communication of the grounds of detention, thus, violating the principle enshrined in Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India.
The petitioner-detenu has further submitted that as a result of furnishing wrong translations, the detenu could not make effective representation which has resulted into infraction of his valuable right as guaranteed under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India.
6. The petitioner-detenu has given instances of major wrong translation among others as follows :
It is submitted that in para6 of the grounds of detention, the English verse is wrongly translated in Hindi as,
^^eSa tkehu eatwu ugha djrk gwa*
The phrase,
^^eq>s og voxr ugha gS**
is not found in English.
^^vkidks lkekU; dkuwu dh tk ldrh
Fkh**
is wrongly translated.
It is submitted by Mr. Tripathi, the learned Counsel for the petitioner-detenu that because of furnishing of copies of grounds of detention order which contained wrong translation, the petitioner-detenu got confused and thereby his right to effective and earliest representation against the Impugned order got impaired and therefore, the said impugned detention order is vitiated and hence, the said detention order is to be quashed and set aside.
8. Ground 6(G) has been replied by Mr. M. N. Singh, Commissioner of Police, Brihan Mumbai, in the additional affidavit dated 16.3.2001. In para2 of the said affidavit, it is submitted that the petitioner-detenu was supplied with a free translation of the grounds of detention and other documents. It is averred that the translation which has been supplied to the detenu is a fairly correct translation of the original documents and the said translation conveys a correct gist of the contents of the original documents. It is denied by Respondent No. 1 that there is any Improper translation in Hindi and that the detenu has lost an opportunity to make an effective representation.
9. After perusing ground 6(G) and the reply to the same given in the above-mentioned additional affidavit filed by Respondent No. 1, we are constrained to observe that the said reply is not a satisfactory one. After comparing Annexure ‘B’, which is a true copy of the grounds of detention order and the Hindi translation thereof, which is also annexed at page No. 20 of the paper book and especially para6 of the Hindi translation, which is at page No. 25, we find that para6 of the Hindi translation is not the faithful translation of the original. The translation has to be intelligible enabling the detenu to make an effective representation lest his right to make a representation, at the earliest opportunity would become a sham and illusory one.
10. A Division Bench of this Court of Smt. Sashikala K. Rane v. Union of India Ors., has observed that” ……… the translation has to be a faithful
or a near faithful translation which would convey the meaning of the original and would enable the detenu to communicate his objections to the Detaining Authority.”
11. In the instant case, we find that there is meaningless sentence in para6 of the Hindi translation viz. ^^eSa tkehu eatwu ugha djrk gwa**
We find another meaning less sentence in the very same para viz.,
^^eq>s og voxr ugha gS**
It therefore, cannot be stated that the translated para6 is the faithful or near faithful translation of the original English. There is every reason to be confused because of this wrong translation, whereby the petitioner-detenu’s right to make effective representation against the impugned detention order got impaired.
12. In the above circumstances, we find merit in the submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the impugned detention order is vitiated by vice of non-application of mind since the translation of the grounds of detention order furnished to the detenu is a wrong translation.
13. In the result, the petition is allowed and the impugned detention order dated 21.7.2000 is quashed and set aside. The petitioner-detenu Parsha @ Rajendrasingh Chandansingh Mander is directed to be released forthwith unless wanted in some other case. Rule is accordingly made absolute.