MOHAMMAD ASHRAF Vs. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE GREATER BOMBAY

JUDGEMENT

(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. Deshmukh, 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:mr. Deshmukh urged that the English translation of the said lines would be as under:-