Bombay High Court
Shri Mohamad Ashraf vs The Commissioner Of Police, Greater ... on 19 July, 1999
Equivalent citations: 2000(5)BOMCR205
Author: Vishnu Sahai
Bench: Vishnu Sahai, T.K. Chandrashekhara Das
ORDER Per Vishnu Sahai, J.
1. Through this writ petition preferred under Article 226 of The Constitution of India, the petitioner who is the cousin brother of the detenu Abubakar Umar Abbas seeks to challenge the detention order dated 21-9-1998 passed by the First Respondent-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).
The detention order along with the grounds of detention also dated 21-9-1998 was served on the detenu on 23-9-1998. True copies of the detention order and the grounds of detention are annexed as Annexures A and B respectively to the petition.
2. The prejudicial activities of the detenu necessitating the issuance of the impugned detention order are contained in the grounds of detention.
A perusal of the grounds of detention shows that the basis of the impugned detention order are two C.Rs. and two in-camera statements. The C.Rs. are mentioned in ground No. 4(a)(iii) and 4(b)(ii). It is pertinent to point out that the F.I.Rs. of the said C.Rs. are written in Marathi.
Ground No. 4(a)(iii) refers the complaint filed by Harish Chaudhary under section 397/34 I.P.C. r/w 3, 25, 27 of the Arms Act registered at Nagpada Police Station vide C.R. No. 134 of 1998.
Ground No. 4(b)(ii) refers to a complaint lodged by Head Constable Madhukar Bandu Kamble for the offence under section 399, 402, 120-B. I. P. C. r/w 3/25 of the Arms Act registered at Nagpada Police Station vide C.R. No. 140 of 1998.
3. We have heard Mr. U.N. Tripathi for the petitioner and Mr. S.G. Desh-mukh, Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondents.
Although in the writ petition Mr. Tripathi has pleaded as many as 8 grounds but, since he is only pressing one ground namely that contained as ground 8(B) in the petition, we are not adverting to the other grounds.
Ground No. 8(B) on which Mr. Tripathi has impugned the detention order in short is that on account of the incomplete and wrong translation of some of the documents in Hindi, the detenu was prevented from making an effective representation under Article 22(5) of The Constitution of India.
Three instances emerge from a perusal of the documents referred to in Ground 8(B).
The first instance relates to the F.I.R. of C.R. No. 134 of 1998. The grievance of Mr. Tripathi is that the Hindi translation of the F.I.R. is not a faithful translation of the original F.I.R. which was in Marathi. Mr. Tripathi pointed out that in the original F.I.R. it is mentioned:
rjh ojhy o.kZukP;k blekauh fjOgkWYojpk /kkd nk[kowu ekb;k o fHkeflax ;kaps rkC;krhy jks[k jdesph tcjh pksjh dsyh Eg.kwu ek>h R;kaps fo: rkj vlwu dk;nsf'j dkbokbZ gks.ksl fouarh vkgs-
Mr. Deshmukh urged that the English translation of the said lines would be as under:-
"Therefore, my complaint is that the above described persons have robbed me and Bhimsingh by showing revolvers and have forcibly take away cash and therefore legal action be taken." Mr. Tripathi concedes that this is the correct translation.
The grievance of Mr. Tripathi is that in the Hindi translation of the F.I.R. of C.R. No. 134 of 1998, there is no mention of the Marathi portion quoted above.
Mr. Deshmukh learned Counsel for the respondents urged that the absence of the above portion in the Hindi translation would not affect the detenu's right to make an effective representation. He invited our attention to para 11 of the return of the Detaining Authority wherein he has mentioned that since the said para is the summing up of the F.I.R.; contains only a request for taking action against the miscreants, and does not contain any facts which are not mentioned in the F.I.R. the detenu's right to make a representation under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India was not violated.
We find merit in the reply of the Detaining Authority.
In our view, since a perusal of the said para shows that it does not contain any facts which are not stated in the F.I.R. the detenu's right to make a representation under Article 22(5) of The Constitution of India has not been violated.
4. The second instance in the contention of Mr. Tripathi is that whereas in the original identification memo of C.R. No. 134 of 1998, which is in Marathi, names of 12 persons including dummies and the detenu are mentioned in the Hindi translation supplied to the detenu, names of 11 persons, including the dummies and the detenu have been mentioned.
Since in our view, the name of the detenu figures both in the identification memo in Marathi as also in its Hindi translation, his right to make an effective representation under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India was not impaired.
5. The third instance is with respect to a wrong and incomplete translation of the F.I.R. of C.R. No. 140 of 1998 lodged by Head Constable Madhukar Bandu Kamble at Police Station Nagpada, under sections 399, 402, 120-B I.P.Cr/w 3/ 25 of the Arms Act.
The grievance of Mr. Tripathi is that the original F.I.R. which is in Marathi is different from the Hindi translation supplied to the detenu. He urged that in the Hindi translation of the F.I.R. there are three mistakes namely:-
(a) in place of C.R. No. 140 of 1998, C.R. No. 134 of 1998 has been mentioned;
(b) in place of 21-4-1998, 16-4-1998 is mentioned;
(c) in place of sections 399, 402, 120-B I.P.Cr/w 3/ 25 of the Arms Act. of the Arms Act, section 397/34 I.P.C. has been mentioned.
Mr. Deshmukh learned Counsel for the respondents vehemently refuted the correctness of Mr. Tripathi's submission and showed us the Hindi translation of the F.I.R. contained in the original file, a copy of which was supplied to the detenu. We find from a perusal of the file that the detenu has acknowledged the receipt of the Hindi translation of the F.I.R. and the translated copy in Hindi does not contain any of the three mistakes pointed out by Mr. Tripathi.
Hence, this instance shown by Mr. Tripathi also does not have any merit.
6. It should be borne in mind that inaccuracy simplicitor in translation does not vitiate a preventive detenti (sic) . The same is vitiated on the said vice if on account of it, the detenu's right to make an effective representation under Article 22(5) of The Constitution of India is impaired. Whether in a given case, the right of the detenu has been impaired would depend on the nature of inaccuracy. It is impossible to catalogue nature of inaccuracies in a translation which would impair the said right of the detenu. Any list can only be illustrative and not exhaustive.
Broadly speaking, if the inaccuracy in translation pertains to the omission of some basic facts on which the detention order is founded or the inaccuracy is such that the detenu may have been misled or confused at the time of making representation, the detention order would stand vitiated on the ground that the detenu's right to make an effective representation under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India has been violated.
However, it is easy to categorise inaccuracies of the converse type. They are inaccuracies which are innocucus (as in the present case) and have no bearing on the detenu's right to make an effective representation under Article 22(5) of The Constitution of India.
7. For the said reasons, we do not find any merit in Ground 8(B). As mentioned earlier, Mr. Tripathi has not pressed the other grounds.
8. In the result, we find no merit in this writ petition and dismiss the same.
Rule is discharged.
9. Petition dismissed.