Bombay High Court
Shri Izaz Rashid Baig @ Ajju vs Shri R.H. Mendonca, Commissioner Of ... on 30 July, 1999
Equivalent citations: 2000(5)BOMCR48
Author: Vishnu Sahai
Bench: Vishnu Sahai, T.K. Chandrasekhara Das
ORDER Vishnu Sahai, J.
1. Through this writ petition preferred under Article 226 of The Constitution of India, the petitioner-detenu seeks to impugn the detention order dated 7-11-1998 passed by the first respondent Mr. R.H. Mendonca, Commissioner of Police, Greater Bombay detaining him 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).
The detention order along with the grounds of detention also dated 7-11-1998 was served on the petitioner-detenu on 11-11-1998. True copies of the detention order and the grounds of detention are annexed as Annexures A and B respectively to this writ petition.
The prejudicial activities on which the impugned detention order is founded are contained in the grounds of detention. Their perusal shows that the impugned detention order is founded on two C.Rs. and two in camera statements, of witnesses A and B. Two C.Rs. are detailed as Grounds 4(a-ii) and 4(b-i) in the grounds of detention.
C.R. detailed in Ground 4(a-ii) namely C.R. No. 223 of 1998 arises out of a complaint dated 18-6-1998 lodged by Mohammed Asmat Khan at Police Station Chembur on the basis of which a case under section 307, 114 I.P.C. r/w sections 3, 25 and 27 of the Arms Act was registered against one Gani and his associates. During the investigation in the said C.R. the complicity of the petitioner-detenu was revealed and he was also arrested on 14-7-1998.
The C.R. detailed in Ground 4(b-i) namely C.R. No. 81 of 1998 arises out of a complaint dated 19-6-1998 lodged by P.S.I. Shailesh Sudhakar Gaikwad at Trombay Police Station against the petitioner-detenu and his associates for offences under section 399, 34 I.P.C. r/w 3 & 25 of the Arms Act.
The in-camera statement of witnesses A and B are dated 19-9-1998 and 23-9-1998 respectively and are contained in grounds 4(c-i) and 4(c-ii) of the grounds of detention. They also incriminate the petitioner-detenu.
2. We have heard Mr. U.N. Tripathi for the petitioner and Mr. Rajiv Patil, Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondents. Although, Mr. Tripathi has pleaded as many as nine grounds running from Ground No. 10(A) to 10(1) in the petition, but since he is only pressing Grounds No. (H) and (I), we are not adverting to the other grounds.
Ground (H) reads that illegible copies of vital documents were supplied to the petitioner-detenu and this impaired his right to make an effective representation under Article 22(5) of The Constitution of India.
3. . Ground No. (H) has replied to in para 19 of the return of the Detaining Authority. Therein the Detaining Authority has mentioned that the ground is vague and the petitioner-detenu has not specified as to which were the illegible vital documents which were furnished to him and hampered his right to make an effective representation.
4. During the course of his submission, Mr. Tripathi pointed out that the vital document of which, an illegible copy was furnished to the petitioner-detenu is the document which has been annexed by him as Exhibit F to the petition. The said document is a panchanama dated 19-6-1998 and bears connection with Ground 4(b-i). On examining Exhibit F, we did find that a part of a page of it is illegible.
When we confronted Mr. Rajiv Patil, learned Counsel for the respondents with the said fact, he showed us the original file wherein the petitioner-detenu has acknowledged the receipt of copy of the said panchanama on 11-11-1998. A perusal of the original panchanama dated 19-6-1998 shows that it is absolutely clear and no part of it is illegible. Since a xerox copy of the said panchanama has been furnished to the petitioner-detenu, we find it difficult to sustain the claim of Mr. Tripathi that the copy supplied to the petitioner-detenu was illegible.
Mr. Tripathi frankly admitted that he did not have the compilation which was supplied by the respondents to the petitioner-detenu and Exhibit F to the petition is xerox copy of the copy of the panchanama contained in the compilation, in such a situation, in our view, it cannot be said that illegible copy of the panchanama dated 19-6-1998 was given to the petitioner-detenu.
We would be failing in fairness if we do not mention that Mr. Tripathi sought time to produce the original compilation but, we rejected his prayer, as we felt that having argued the matter extensively, it was not proper to make it. Consequently, we reject ground 10(H).
5. Ground (I) in short is that there are two documents in English, a part of which is in Hindi and copies of those documents supplied to the petitioner-detenu do not contain the English translation of those parts of the document which are in Hindi.
6. Ground (I) has been replied to in para 20 of the return of the Detaining Authority. Therein, he has mentioned that the said ground is vague and has also denied that the translation of the documents was not supplied to the petitioner-detenu.
7. During the course of his submissions, Mr. Tripathi invited our attention to two documents which are filed as Annexures G and H respectively to the writ petition. It is true that in Annexure G, there is a part in Hindi and the said part has not been translated in English and given to the detenu.
When we pointed this out to Mr. Rajiv Patil, learned Counsel for the respondents, he showed us the original file. He invited our attention to the document at page 159 of the original file namely the arrest memo of the petitioner-detenu. Mr. Patil invited our attention to a column in the said memo wherein the detenu admitted that he understood Hindi, English and Urdu. Mr. Patil pointed out that the said memo was signed by the petitioner-detenu. In Mr. Patil's contention, since the petitioner-detenu knew Hindi, no prejudice was caused to him if the translation in English of the Hindi part contained in Annexure G to the petition was not supplied to the petitioner-detenu. We find merit in his submission.
8. Next document referred to by Mr. Tripathi is the document filed as Exhibit H. The said document is the report of the Ballistic Expert. The part of the English translation not furnished to the petitioner-detenu in the contention of Mr. Tripathi is at page 52. The said part is not in Hindi as urged in Ground (I) but, in Marathi. The said part in English reads "Please make arrangements to take away the mud-demal within 15 days, otherwise the responsibility of damage or maintaining the same will be completely yours." Mr. Tripathi does not dispute that this is the correct translation. In the contention of Mr. Patil with which we are in agreement, the absence of the English translation of this part, would not in any way, impair the right of the petitioner-detenu to make an effective representation.
9. For the said reasons, we reject this submission also.
10. Before parting with this case, we would like to point out that absence sim-plicitor of translation of a document or a part of it, in a language ineligible to the detenu would not vitiate a detention order. A detention order would only be vitiated if there is absence of translation of vital document or part of it, which would impair the right of the detenu to make an effective representation.
Similarly, we make no bones in observing that the supply of an illegible document or its part simplicitor would not vitiate a detention order. It would only be vitiated if the illegible document or its part is a vital document and would hamper upon the detenu 's' right to make an effective representation.
11. For the said reasons, we do not find any merit in this writ petition and dismiss the same.
Rule is discharged.
12. Petition dismissed.