Bombay High Court
Smt. Rehana Firoz Khan vs Shri M.N. Singh Commissioner Of Police ... on 24 November, 2000
Equivalent citations: 2001BOMCR(CRI)~, (2001)1BOMLR438, 2001CRILJ1018
Author: A. M. Khanwilkar
Bench: A.M. Khanwilkar
ORDER A. M. Khanwilkar, J.
1. By this petition, the Petitioner, who is the wife of detenu Firoz Khan alias Muttu Sulaiman Khan, has assailed the order of detention dated 10th August, 2000 passed by the Commissioner of Police in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 3 of the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords. Bootleggers, Drug Offenders and Dangerous Persons Act, 1981 (hereinafter referred to as the M.P.D.A. Act).
2. Although various contentions have been raised in the writ petition and also during the course of argument before us, however we have preferred to confine ourselves in the present judgment only to one question as in our view, the same is good enough to allow the petition and quash and set aside the impugned detention order.
3. The short ground on which the present petition should succeed is articulated is ground (H) of the writ petition, which reads thus :
"(H) The Petitioner submits that the Detenu has been supplied with the Order dated 14th May, 1999 wherein earlier the detenu was detained under the said MPDA Act. The copy of the said order at page 61 of the compilation and the translation of the same in Hindi language is at page No. 63 of the compilation supplied to the Detenu. In the Hindi translation of the order dated 14th May, 1999, it has been stated that the detenu has been detained for breach of public peace and law. This translation is also incorrect since in the original order it has been stated that the detenu is detained to prevent him from acting in breach of public order. Similarly at page 204 of the compilation the order granting bail to the detenu for the offence registered at R.C.F. Police Station vide C. R. No. 88 of 2000 has been supplied to the detenu. The said order is in English language and a translation of the same is at page 206 of the compilation supplied to the detenu. In the Hindi translation the last paragraph of the order has not been translated at all. In the said paragraph it has been stated "after going through the facts mentioned in this Remand Application prayer made by defence side were for cash bail were rejected". Thus the complete translation of the order passed by the learned Magistrate on 6th May, 2000 of the aforesaid offence has not been translated to the Detenu. This has once again resulted in violation of the right of the detenu under Article 226 of the Constitution of India."
4. In substance, the grievance made on behalf of the Petitioner is that the relevant portion of the bail order was not translated and furnished to the detenu which has impaired the detenu's right to make effective representation under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India. There is no dispute that the document which has been translated and furnished to the detenu in the language known to him is inaccurate inasmuch as the relevant portion of the bail order dated 6th May, 2000 was not translated and furnished to the detenu. The Petitioner is, therefore, entitled to make a grievance, for the relevant portion of the bail order was admittedly relied upon by the Detaining Authority while recording the subjective satisfaction, as can be seen from the grounds of detention at page. 45 paragraph 5(b-vi) as well as page 48 paragraph 7. Therefore, furnishing of inaccurate and incomplete document not only tantamounts to not furnishing that portion of the document, but also inevitably entails in affecting the detenu's right to make effective representation due to the variance in the original and the translation made available to the detenu. Moreover, it is well settled that in a case where detenu is released on bail and is at liberty at the time of passing the order of detention, then the Detaining Authority has to necessarily rely upon them as that would be a vital ground for ordering detention. In such a case, the bail application and the order granting bail should necessarily be placed before the Authority and the copies should also be supplied to the detenu. It was therefore imperative to furnish the complete document, both original and accurate translation thereof, to the detenu along with the detention order, in view of this well settled law, failing which the right of detenu to make effective representation under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India has been impaired and/or violated due to the variance in the translation.
5. While parting, we would like to express our anguish and indignation that the present detenu has succeeded before this Court on the second occasion on such technical point, obviously because of the laxity observed in the office of the Detaining Authority. On the last occasion he was detained in exercise of powers under the said Act pursuant to the order passed on 14th May, 1999, which order was quashed and set aside by this Court on 19th August, 1999 on the ground that the detenu was not supplied with the documents in the language known to him. Whereas, on this occasion he has succeeded on the ground that the translated document furnished to him was incomplete. We hope and trust that the concerned authority shall take note of this aspect of the matter and take remedial and corrective action against the erring officials to take it to logical end and particularly when the Act is intended to curb the activities of the detenu which are of such dimensions that they transcend upon public order, public peace and public tranquillity. It is beyond our comprehension that the detention orders passed under the said Act should suffer reversals on such technical pleas, chiefly on account of non-observance of adequate caution by the officers/ sub-ordinates assisting the Detaining Authority. We, therefore, hope that the concerned authorities shall take up this matter at the appropriate level to take it to its logical end by fastening accountability on the erring officials and for suitable corrective action against them. We appreciate the gesture shown by the learned Public Prosecutor of assuring us that the anguish expressed by this Court shall be conveyed to the concerned authorities.
6. Taking any view of the matter, the present petition should necessarily succeed and we order accordingly.
"The impugned detention order dated 10th August, 2000 passed by the Commissioner of Police against the detenu Firoz Khan @ Muttu Suleman Khan under section 3(1) of M.P.D. A. Act is quashed and set aside.
We further direct the Respondents to release the petitioner/ detenu forthwith in case he is not required in any other case.
The writ petition is allowed. Rule is made absolute accordingly.
Parties to act on an ordinary copy of this order duly authenticated by the Sheristedar of this Court.