JUDGMENT
D.G. Deshpande, J.
1. 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 Slumlord, Bootleggers, Drug Offenders and Dangerous Persons Act (MPDA Act) by the detention order dated 31.7.2000. Number of grounds have been raised by the petitioner challenging the detention. However, Mr. Tripathi restricted himself of 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 mistake 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 transaction 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) Unnumbered paragraph 1 of the grounds of detention order 5th line – word “grounds”
ii) Unnumbered paragraph 1 of the grounds of detention order 5th line – words “detention order”
iii) Unnumbered paragraph last line of the grounds of detention – words “public interest”
iv) Unnumbered paragraph last line of the ground 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”
vii) 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)
Grand
=
dkju
(ii)
Detention order
=
fo’ks”k vkns’k
(iii)
Public interest
=
rqEgh mudh j{kk ds fgr esa
(iv)
Privilege
=
fo’ks”k vf/kdkj
(v)
Tried to Convince you
=
vkidks vkisd lkFkh————— vU;
dks
(vi)
Legal
=
voS/k
(vii)
Anticipating law
and order problem:
=
vius ng’kr dk okrkoj.k vkSj Hk; fuekZ.k
fd;k Fkk
(viii)
Likely to take
place
=
xaHkhj fLFkrh iSnk gq;h Fkh
(ix)
Demolition work was stopped
=
fu”dk’ku dk dke :dk gqvk ns[kk
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 FIR 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) 1986 Cri. L.J. 450, Pradeepkumar Vanravandas Gosalia v. State of Maharashtra and Ors.
2) Unreported Judgement in Criminal Writ Petition N. 243 of 2001, Shri Mohd. Ali @ Jongo Abdul Shakur Khan v. Shri M.N. Singh and Ors.
6. As against this, it was contended by Mr. Patil that in so far as wrong translation is concerned, they are absolutely trivial and minor and they do not affect the right of the detenue to make effective representation. He also contended that the so-called wrong translation were not of such a nature that the detenue was misled into believing certain non existing facts.
7. So far as two omissions in the translation about two sentences, quoted above, are concerned, Mr. Patil contended that even if two sentences were translated in Hind version, the detenue was also given English documents or the grounds of detention and the detention order, and in view of the fact that he is studied upto T.Y. B.Com. should have read the English version and therefore it could not be said that his right of making effective representation was affected in any manner. He relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court Mr. Kubic Darius. v. Union of India and Ors. and unreported judgment in Criminal Writ Petition No. 827 of 1991, K. Jabbar s/o. Kadar Ibrahim v. Shri J. P. Dange and Ors. He also relied upon the statement of the detenue recorded during investigation, copy of which was supplied to the detenue to show that detenue is studied upto T.Y. B.Com. Therefore, according to Mr. Patil the so-called wrong translation or omission to translate two sentences does not at all cause any prejudice to the detenue and the detention order cannot be assailed on that ground.
8. Regarding non supply of vital documents referred to in FIR, Mr. Patil showed us FIR and contended that the reference by the officer of the BMC who lodged the FIR to certain notice/notices given to Mr. Thorad does not entitle the detenue to get copies of those notices because detenue is not connected with or concerned with Mr. Throat or his alleged encroachment. Further detenue was not called upon by anybody to obstruct or oppose the demolition work and therefore non-supply of the copy of the notice issued by the BMC to Mr. Thorat does not affect the right of making effective representation.
9. We have given our anxious consideration to the submissions made by Mr. Tripathi and Mr. Patil. So far as the last point of not supplying vital documents, namely, copy of the notice/notices issued by the B.M.C. to one Mr. Thorat about his illegal encroachment, we do not find any substance in the objection raised by Mr. Tripathi. The FIR was shown in that regard to us by Mr. Patil, copy of the same is furnished to the detenue and from the FIR it is clear that BMC wanted to take action against Mr. Thorat for illegal construction and before going for demolition they had issued some notice or notices to Mr. Thorat, but even then Mr. Thorat did not take any action, therefore BMC officer went to the spot with labourers and police force for demolition and at that time the detenue with his associates started creating obstructions. In this background or the matter it was not at all necessary for the detaining authority to give to the detenue copies of the notice / notices issued by the BMC to Mr. Thorat. Mr. Tripathi could not show as to how the detenue was interested in the structure or interested in Mr. Thorat or interested in protecting the structure or had any legal right to oppose demolition, therefore whatever transpired between BMC and Mr. Thorat is not at all a matter of concern for the detenu and non-supply of those notices does not affect the detention order. We therefore reject that ground.
10. In paragraph 4(a)(i) of the grounds of detention the history of the entire incident that took place has been given and from this it is clear that Bombay Municipal Corporation Officers received information about illegal construction carried out by Dinkar Krishna Thorat who was owner of “Thorat Bandu Provisions Stores”. He was served with notice by the Bombay Municipal Corporation staff regarding illegal construction and then on 26.3.2002 officers of the Bombay Municipal Corporation with staff and 70 labourers went to carry out the demolition work along with J.C.B. machine and police protection. At that time the owner thorat was not present in the shop but the detenue and his associates and 25 other persons came at the site, associates of the detenue instigated people in the shop to pull down the shutter and lock it. Therefore the persons present in the shop pulled down the shutter. This was repeated by other shopkeepers, then the associates of the detenue instigated people not to allow the Bombay Municipal Corporation staff to carry out the demolition, and in this background further particulars have been given where according to Mr. Tripathi certain words have been wrongly translated. The entire argument of Mr. Tripathi regarding wrong translation is required to be rejected because they are absolutely trivial any minor mistakes in affecting the right of detenue to make effective representation nor resulting in misleading the detenue about the incident that has happened.
11. So far as furnishing of wrong translation is concerned, we have quoted above the places where the wrong translation has occurred and what was position in the English version. It will be clear that in ground 4(a)(i) the history of the incident has been given by the detaining authority which took place when the officers of the BMC went for demolition of the structure of Thorat and when the detenu and his associates created obstructions. Mistake of translation in item Nos. 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9 of paragraph 3 of the judgment have appeared in giving the particulars of the incident. Firstly, there are no vital mistakes of translations. Secondly, there are no mistakes which can be said to have mislead the detenue in understanding the nature of the incident occurred and the defence he wanted to raise against the detention order while making the effective representation. We have quoted the English version and translation in para 3 above and most of the translations are correct and wherever there is a mistake same is not at all vital or serious which could be said to have affected the right of making effective representation. None of the mistake are of such a nature as to misled the detenue in understanding the detention order or in making proper representation. Therefore, the ground regarding improper translation is required to be rejected and we hereby reject the same.
12. So far as unnumbered para 1(on internal page 25 of the petition) of the grounds of detention is concerned, the words “detention order” “ground, “public interest”, “privilege” have been properly translated. The translation of the word “detention order “as”
^^fojks/k vkns’k**
” or “ground” as ”
^^——— dkju————————–**
” or “public interest “as”
^^j{kk ds fgr esa—————–**
cannot be said to be misleading nor can be said to be so gross as to affect the right of making effective representation. We are therefore rejecting the argument of Mr. Tripathi about wrong translation.
13. Mr. Tripathi relied upon the Judgement of this Court reported in 1986 Cri. L.J. 450 Pradeepkumar Vanravandas Gosalia v. State of Maharashtra and Ors, about the effect of improper and incorrect translation. However, facts of that case are totally different and we quote the following paragraph from the said judgment:
“From the facts and circumstances of this case, there is no doubt that the detenu was apprehended for exporting goods outside the country and the impugned order (English version) has to be understood in that light alone and yet the Gujarati version leaves no doubt that the detenu was detained with a view to preventing him form bringing in smuggled goods. This is bound to create confusion in the mind of the detenu as to what case he has to meet.”
It is clear that in the case of Pradepkumar the translation was totally misleading thereby resulting in depriving of right of making effective representation. In the instant case before us none of the so-called mistakes in translation can be said to be misleading and therefore this judgment is of no help.
14. Mr. Tripathi however strongly contended that two sentence in the ground of detention which are material sentences were deleted in the translation version in the grounds of detention. These two lines are in paragraph 4(a)(v) (internal page 29 of the petition) in English version “You are interrogated and your statement was recorded in which you have been admitted having committed this offence”, and secondly paragraph 4(a)(i) (internal page 28 of the petition) 9th line: “To avoid serious law and order problem the demolition work was stopped.” According to Mr. Tripathi when in Hindi version of the documents these two lines were not translated then it has deprived the detenue or his right to make effective representation. He relied upon the unreported judgment of this Court in Criminal Writ Petition No. 243 of 2001, Shri Modh. Ali @ Jongo Abdul Shakur Khan v. Shri M. N. Singh and Ors., wherein the petition was allowed because of the wrong translation or omission to translate certain lines.
15. As against this, Mr. Patil has relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court Mr. Kubic Dariusz v. Union of India and Ors. In that case a Polish National was detained. It was alleged that he has smuggled gold in India. The order of detention and the grounds of detention were served in English. The detenue received them and acknowledge the receipt thereof by putting his signature in English but thereafter he raised the objection that he was not understanding English and the documents should have been furnished to him in his mother tongue i.e. Polish. Rejecting that contention Supreme Court held in paragraph 9 as under:
It is permissible for the Court to consider the facts and circumstances of the case so as to have a reasonable view as to the detenu’s knowledge of the language in which the grounds of detention were served, particularly in a case where the detenue is a foreign national. If the detenu’s statement is to be accepted as correct under all circumstances it would be incumbent on the part of the detaining authority in each such case to furnish the grounds of detention in the mother tongue of the detenue which may involve some delay or difficulty under peculiar circumstances of a case. On the other hand if it is permissible to ascertain whether the statement of the detenue in this regard was correct or not it would involve a subjective determination. It would, of course, always be safer curse in such cases to furnish translations in the detenu’s own language. We are of the view that it would be open for the Court to consider the facts and circumstances of a case to reasonably ascertain whether the detenue is feigning ignorance of the language or he has such working knowledge as to understand the grounds of detention and the contents of the documents furnished.”
Therefore by applying the aforesaid test, the Court came to the conclusion that there was sufficient material to hold that the detenue was understanding English and he was falsely feigning ignorance of English. In the same judgment the Supreme Court has considered its own judgment and quoted the following paragraph from the said judgment:
“There is no rule of law that commonsense should be put in cold storage while considering Constitutional provisions for safeguards against misuse of powers by authorities though these Constitutional provisions should be strictly construed.”
The Court also observed that the Court is not the place where one can sell all tales. This judgment of the Supreme Court is followed by this Court in an unreported Judgment in Criminal Writ Petition No. 827 of 19911, K. Jabbar s/o. Kader Ibrahim v. Shri J.P. Dange and Ors.) wherein actual allegation of the detenue was that Tamil version of 15 documents were not furnished to the detenue. However, admittedly, English version was supplied to him and in his statement recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act, the detenue has stated that he knows how to write, read and speak Tamil but also stated that he can understand English only to a certain extent. The Court therefore concluded that the detenue had workable knowledge of English and therefore relying upon the aforesaid Judgment of the Supreme Court, this Court rejected the contention of the detenue about non-supply of 15 documents in Tamil version.
16. In the instant case the grievance of the detenue is not at all so serious as was in Criminal Writ Petition No. 827 of 1991. In the present case there is no grievance of non supply of documents, each and every document is supplied but only grievance is that two sentences in ground 4(a) (v) and one sentence in ground 4(a)(i) in the grounds of detention were not translated. Applying ratio of the Supreme Court and that of this Court in both the Judgments, referred to above, we hold that this contention about omission of translation of two sentences in Hindi when English version of the grounds of detention was supplied to the detenue and when the detenue being studied upto I.Y. B.Com. was knowing English and has a workable knowledge of English, they are required to be rejected outright. In view of the Supreme Court judgment which is followed by this Court, rulings relied upon by Mr. Tripathi have no application.
17. The next contention of Mr. Tripathi was about non supply of vital documents. In that regard our attention was drawn by Mr. Tripathi to FIR lodged and the grounds of detention wherein detaining authority has said in paragraph 4(a)(i) that notice was served upon Dinkar Krishna Thorat about the illegal construction done by him. This document is a notice served by the Bombay Municipal Corporation upon Thorat who had made illegal construction. The detenue is no way concerned with the said Thorat. He has no interest in the shop or the premises where illegal construction was made. No such plea was raised before us nor any connection was shown. Detenue went with his associates to the spot when for demolition and created obstructions in the work of the authorities. The detenue is not at all concerned with the notice issued by the Bombay Municipal Corporation to Thorat and therefore non supply of that document does not affect making effective representation nor is a case of non application of mind.
18. For all these reasons, we do not find any merit in this petition, hence petition is dismissed. Rule discharged.