SANDIP SURESH GHAG Vs. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, MUNBAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition takes exception to the order of detention bearing No. 11/PCB/DP/Zone-XI/2013 dated 19th July, 2013 passed under Section 3(2) of the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords, Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Dangerous Persons and Video Pirates Act, 1981 by the Commissioner of Police, Mumbai as against the petitioner/detenu. The petitioner has raised several grounds for seeking quashing and setting aside of the order of detention. However, in our opinion, it is not necessary to advert to all the grounds, except ground 3(h) of the petition.

(2.) In ground 3(h), in short, it is stated that the Detaining Authority has communicated the grounds of detention and all other relied on documents in a compilation, the original of which is in English along with the Marathi translation. It is stated that the detenu being a Maharashtrian, is able to read, write and understand Marathi language only. According to the petitioner, an injury report of Shri Anant Balu Kapre, which is a medico-legal document at page 125 of the compilation has been supplied to the petitioner/detenu in English along with the Marathi translation thereof. According to the petitioner/detenu, the Marathi translation of the injury report, is not true and correct. It is stated that in the second column under the caption "nature of injury", item No. 4 is not the true translation and there is some addition found in the Marathi translation, which is not there in the original English document. Similarly, in column 2 of the injury report, item No. 4, the size of the injury which is shown as 2 cm diameter, is not found to be correctly translated. Thirdly, the last column of the report i.e. the 'remark column', has not been translated at all in the Marathi translated report. Therefore, according to the petitioner, non-furnishing of true and faithful translation of the injury report, a relied on and vital document, has impaired his right to make an effective representation under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India.

(3.) In response to the aforesaid ground at 3(h), the Detaining Authority has filed its reply and countered the same. It is stated in the reply that the detenu had been furnished with the true, correct and faithful translation of the documents in order to enable him to make effective and purposeful representation. It is stated that the medico-legal document at page 125, in the compilation of documents, pertains to a C.R., being C.R. No. 62 of 2013 of the Borivali Police Station. It is stated that the detenu has been partly furnished with the Marathi translation of the said document and that in the last column i.e. "remarks column", the medical details of the treatment given to the complainant have not been furnished to the detenu. However, the material details as to the type of injury/details of injury, on which part of the body the said injury is caused and whether the injury is simple, grievous or dangerous to life, have been furnished to the detenu so as to enable him to make an effective representation. It is stated that the necessary details of the medico-legal certificate have been furnished to the detenu and hence, mere non-furnishing of the remarks will not affect the detenu's right to make an effective and purposeful representation. It is further stated that the second column of the medico-legal certificate, which pertains to the nature of injury has been correctly translated and furnished to the detenu. It is also stated that the size of the injury in item No. 3 which pertains to abrasion and contusion, the size of injury 1.5 x 0.1 cm has been translated and furnished to the detenu. However, inadvertently, the 2 cm diameter injury has not been translated and given to the detenu. It is stated that non-furnishing of the size of the injury will not, in any way, affect the detenu's right to make an effective representation, as the other material facts have been furnished to the detenu to enable him to make an effective representation.