GANPAT PANDURANG PANCHAL Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THROUGH this writ petition preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner, who describes himself as the father of the detenu Ramesh Ganpat Panchal, has impugned the order dated 8th June, 2001, passed by the 2nd respondent Mr. M. N. Singh, Commissioner of Police, Brihan Mumbai, 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. 1 V of 1981) (hereinafter referred to as the MPDA Act.)The detention order alongwith the grounds of detention, which are also dated 8th June, 2001 was served on the detenu on 11th June, 2001 and their true copies have been annexed to this petition.

(2.) A perusal of the grounds of detention would show that the impugned order is founded on one CR, namely CR No. 112/2001, under sections 326 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code read with 4, 25 of the Arms Act, registered on the basis of a complaint, dated 14-3-2001, lodged by Premkumar Jaiswal at Malad Police Station and in-camera statements of two witnesses, namely, A and B, which were recorded on 25-4-2001. Since in our view, a reference to the prejudicial activities of the detenu contained in the grounds of detention is not necessary for adjudication of ground 12 (VII) pleaded in the petition, on which ground alone, in our judgment, this petition deserves to succeed, we are not adverting to them.

(3.) IN ground 12 (VII) number of grounds including the ground that since Marathi translation of documents supplied to the detenu is not a true and faithful translation of the original, detenus fundamental right of making an effective representation, guaranteed under Article 22 (5) of the Constitution of India, was impaired, are contained. Two instances have been specifically set forth, namely, (a) that whereas the original injury report of the victim, Premkumar Jaiswal, which is in English shows that the first injury sustained by him was an incised wound over (L) popliteal region 20 cm x 5 cm, but in the Marathi translation, the said injury has been shown to have been suffered by the victim on the head; (b) whereas in the original in-camera statement of witness B, recorded in English, the averment is that the detenus associate Ramesh Salvi, after resting a choppar on the chest of the witness, and abusing him, asked him to hand over Rs. 2000/-, in the Marathi translation, in place of Rs. 2000/-, the amount mentioned is Rs. 1000/ -. The contention of Mr. Chopra, learned Counsel for the petitioner is that on account of the aforesaid discrepancies in translation, the detenu could have been confused or misled in exercising his fundamental right, guaranteed to him by Article 22 (5) of the Constitution of India, of making an effective and purposeful representation.