RevatiMohite Dere, J.

1. This petition, takes exception to the order of detention bearing no.PSA-1211/CR-21(4)/SPL-3(A) dated 7th February, 2012 (shown as PSA-1210/CR-21(4)/SPL-3(A) dated 7th February, 2012), passed under sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as the COFEPOSA Act), by the Principal Secretary, (Appeals & Security), Government of Maharashtra, Home Department, Mumbai, as against the detenu.

2. We have heard Mr.Vikram Chaudhari, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner, Mr.Yagnik, learned APP for the State and Ms. A.S. Pai, APP for the Sponsoring Authority. We have perused the records pertaining to the said case.

3. The Learned Senior Counsel appearing for 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 referred to in the petition, except to refer to ground 5(A) and 5(D) of the Writ Petition, which are overlapping. In Ground 5(A), in short, it is stated that as the detenu was not conversant with the English language and had no working knowledge thereof, the detaining authority had furnished the detenu with the Hindi translation of the impugned order of detention and the grounds of detention. It is stated that the order of detention and the grounds of detention communicated to the detenue could not be said to be valid communication, as contemplated under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India, thereby depriving the detenu of his right to make an effective representation. It is stated that the said communication was mis-leading and had left the detenu confused. In ground 5(D), it is stated that there are several discrepancies and variations in the English and Hindi version of the impugned order of detention, which were material and fatal. It is stated ; (i) that the English version bears a different detention order number PSA-1211/CR-21(4)/SPL-3(A) when compared with its purported Hindi version bearing number PSA-1210/CR-21(4)/SPL-3(A); (ii) that in the Hindi translation of the impugned order of detention, the detaining authority has claimed, ".....Shri Brahmpal Panchal (Umra 53 Saal) jyoyahan rehta hai usai achi tarahse mein wakib hoon......". It is stated that the meaning of the aforesaid sentence, in English would mean that the detaining authority knew the detenu very well, which was not forthcoming in the English order of detention ; (iii) that the order of detention in English showed that the detaining authority was "satisfied" about the necessity of passing the order, which is not reflected in the Hindi version ; (iv) that the Hindi translation of the order of detention shows that the purpose of detention was in variance and different from the original order of detention in English and lastly (v) the Hindi translation of the detention order shows that the purpose of detention was beyond the powers conferred upon the detaining authority under Section 3(1) of the COFEPOSA Act.

4. In response to the aforesaid grounds 5 (A) and 5 (D), the Detaining Authority has in its reply stated, that all the documents were served upon the detenu in a language known and understood by him. It was stated that as the detenu was conversant in Hindi, all the English documents were translated into Hindi and served upon him. According to the Detaining Authority, the discrepancies and variations in the Hindi translation of the impugned order of detention, did not necessarily prejudice the detenu or impair his right to make an effective representation under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India. It was stated that the discrepancy in the detention order in English bearing no.PSA-1211/CR-21(4)/SPL-3(A) dated 7th February, 2012 and the Hindi version of the same bearing No.PSA-1210/CR-21(4)/SPL-3(A), is a typographical error and the same will not prejudice the detenu in making an effective representation. It was stated that the 5 discrepancies alleged in ground 5(D) of the petition, with regard to the Hindi translation being inaccurate was incorrect and immaterial, as the Detaining Authority had relied on the English version of the detention order which clearly states that the Detaining Authority was "satisfied with respect to the person known as Shri Brahmpal Panchal (Age 53 years) residing at House No.515, New Vijay Nagar, Shivpuri, Ghaziabad.". It was therefore stated that a plain reading of the detention order, shows satisfaction of the Detaining Authority and therefore there was no prejudice caused to the detenu in making an effective representation. It was further stated that the discrepancies alleged were not material or in variance so as to cause prejudice to the detenu.

5. Mr. Chaudhari, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner urged before us, that there are material and vital discrepancies / variance in the Hindi translation of the original English order of detention in English, dated 7th February, 2012. He urged that the Hindi translation of the order of detention, being an inaccurate translation, impaired the detenus right to make an effective representation, under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India. He contended that the detenu could be said to have been misled / confused on account of the said discrepancies. According to him, the discrepancies are vital and go to the root of the matter, inasmuch as, furnishing wrong translation impairs the right of the detenu to make an effective representation. In support of his contention, the learned counsel relied on the Judgments of Sabira Shaikh Raees vs. R.H. Mendonca and Others, 2003 (Supp.) Bom. C.R. 1; Nazma Moiddin Shaikh vs. R.H. Mendonca, Commissioner of Police and Others, 2001 Bom.C.R. (Cri.) 448; Vijay Kumar Dharna alias Koka vs. Union of India and Others (1990) 1 SCC 606 [LQ/SC/1990/72] and several other Judgments.

6. Per contra, Mr.Yagnik, the learned APP contended that the discrepancies and variance where not of such a nature so as to cause prejudice to the detenu in making an effective representation, under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India. He therefore urged that the petition ought to dismissed as the grounds raised in the petition were devoid of merit.

7. Before we advert and deal with the facts of the present case, it would be apposite to refer to some of the Judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner. In the case of Sabira Shaikh (supra), there was a discrepancy in the Hindi translation of one of the paragraphs, of the grounds of detention wherein, in the Hindi translation it was mentioned as "law and order" in place of "public order". Similarly, in the Hindi translation it was mentioned, that the detenu would revert to similar acts prejudicial to the maintenance of law and order in future which was in variance with the English order, which stated that the detenu would revert to similar acts prejudicial to the maintenance of the public order in future. This Court in the said case, rejected the contention of the Detaining Authority that the discrepancies were minor and not glaring and therefore no prejudice was caused to him on account of the same. This Court observed in paragraphs 6, 7 and 7(a) as under :-

"6. We have reflected over the rival submissions and we are constrained to observe that we do not find any merit in Mr. Patils submission. We make no bones in observing that once the Detaining and Sponsoring Authority decided to furnish a Hindi translation to the detenu, it hardly lay in their mouth to suggest that they had a licence to give the incorrect translation because, the detenu knew English and no prejudice would be caused to him on account of some incorrectness in the Hindi translation. We could have appreciated had the Detaining Authority taken the stand that since the detenu knew English, it was under no obligation to supply him the Hindi transaction but, we cannot give judicial protection to the mistake in the Hindi translation on account of this fact."

"In this connection, it would be pertinent to refer to para 17 of the decision of a Division Bench of this Court, reported in 1987 (1) Bom.C.R.617 : 1987 Cri.L.J. Page 1787, (Smt. Shashikala Krishnarao Rane, Petitioner vs. Union of India, Respondents). A perusal of the said para would show that the Marathi translation of the grounds of detention, as also the declaration under Section 9(1) of the COFEPOSA Act supplied to the detenu, contained some mistakes and inspite of the fact that the detenu knew English the Division Bench accepted the contention of the petitioners counsel (Mr. M.G. Karmali) that they could not be put in the cold storage. We are extracting the relevant portion of the observations contained in the said para which read thus :-

"We are inclined to accept this submission made by Mr. Karmali. If the Detaining Authority thought it expedient to furnish the translations even though the detenu knew English, then the detenu was entitled to take advantage of the translations and to point out that the translations which he relied upon did not convey a faithful meaning of the original grounds or the Declaration under Section 9(1) of the Act and were such as to make it impossible for the detenu to communicate and on that ground also the Order ought to be struck down."

"7. We are also not inclined to accept Mr. Patils contention that the inaccuracies in the translation were of a minor nature and did not affect the detenus right to make a proper and effective representation under Article 22(5) of The Constitution of India."

"As we have seen earlier in paras 5 and 6 of the grounds of detention, the word public order was used but, in the Hindi translation of the said paras, public order was translated as law and order."

"7A. We regret that public order and law and order are not synonymous. The two terms are distinct in the eyes of law, and so distinct that the breach of law and order would not invite the issuance of a preventive detention order under the MPDA Act but, a breach of public order would." (emphasis supplied)

8. In Nazma Moiddin Shaik (supra), the substratum of the point which was urged before this Court, was that the grounds of detention in English asserted, that the detenue was a habitual criminal and as action taken against him, under the normal law of land was found to be inadequate and ineffective, it was necessary to detain him with a view to prevent him from indulging in criminal activities prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. Whereas, on the other hand, the Hindi version of the grounds of detention furnished to the detenu, which was said to be an accurate translation of the English version mentioned "law and order" instead of the expression "public order". This Court, in view of the variance between the English and translated version, held that the impugned detention order was vitiated because of the said variance in the grounds of detention, as, for the word "public order" the words used in the Hindi translation were "law and order". It was stated that by no stretch of imagination, the two words could be said to be synonymous. It was held that breach of public order would be germane for issuance of an order under the preventive detention law i.e. under the M.P.D.A Act and in view of the variance in the Hindi translation, it was held the detenus right to make an effective representation under Article 22(5) of the Constitution was impaired.

9. Similarly, in Vijay Kumar Dharna alias Koka (supra), the Apex Court was concerned with a case under the COFEPOSA Act. It was urged by the petitioner therein, that he was well versed only in Gurmukhi script and that the detention order and grounds of detention which were supplied to him in Gurmukhi were in variance with the English version, as a result of which he could not make an effective representation against the impugned order. The Apex Court in paragraph 4, observed as under:-

"4. In the Gurmukhi version of the detention order it was stated that the detention order had become necessary with a view to preventing him from smuggling goods and from abetting the smuggling of goods. It is, therefore, clear that according to the Gurmukhi version the detenu was taken in detention under Clauses (i) & (ii) of Section 3(1) of the Act. However, when we turn to the grounds of detention the detaining authority records his satisfaction as under:

"I am satisfied it is necessary to detain you under COFEPOSA Act, 1974 with a view to preventing you from concealing, transporting smuggled goods as well as dealing in smuggled goods."

"This satisfaction clearly reflects the grounds contained in Clauses (iii) & (iv) of Section 3(1) of the Act. The above satisfaction does not speak of smuggling of goods or abetting the smuggling of goods which are the grounds found in the Gurmukhi version of the detention order. There is, therefore, considerable force in the contention urged by the learned counsel for the appellant that on account of this variance the detenu was not able to effectively represent his case before the concerned authorities. In fact according to him the appellant was confused whether he should represent against his detention for smuggling of goods and/or abetting the smuggling of goods or for engaging in transporting and concealing smuggled goods and/or dealing in smuggled goods. Besides the English version of the detention order was only for abetting the smuggling of goods. The satisfaction recorded in the Gurmukhi version of the grounds for detention is not consistent with the purpose for detention found in the detention order. It left the detenu confused whether he should represent against the grounds in the detention order or the satisfaction recorded in the grounds of detention. We are, therefore, of the opinion that because of this variance the detenu was unable to make an effective representation against his detention and was thereby denied his right under Article 22(5) of the Constitution."

10. Thus, the law relating to variance / discrepancies in translation of documents is no longer res intergra and the aforesaid authorities fortify the said position. We find, that in the present case, the discrepancies in the Hindi translation are glaring and vital and have the potential of mis-leading and confusing the detenu, thereby impairing his right to make an effective representation as mandated under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India.

11. We have perused the English order of detention and the Hindi translation of the same. A perusal of the order of detention in English reads thus :

"I.. am satisfied with respect to the person known as Shri Brahmpal Panchal (Age 53 years) residing at House No.515, New Vijay Nagar, Shivpuri, Ghaziabad that with a view to preventing him in future from smuggling goods and engaging in transporting and concealing and keeping smuggled goods and dealing in smuggled goods, it is necessary to make the following order..." (emphasis supplied)

"The Hindi translation of the aforesaid document furnished to the detenu reads thus :-

"Main......Shri. Brahapal Panchal (umra 53 saal) jo yanha raheta hai us se achi tarahase mai vaakib hun, makan number 515, nayaa vijay nagar, Shwipuri, Gajiyaabad aur use bhavisya me smugling kaa maal aur smugling ke liye badhava dene ke liye, smugling maalke vaahtuk me vyasth rahena aur smugling kaa maal chupaana aur usko rakhana, smugling main vyasth logon ko rahene ke liye thikaana dena aur smugling karne main badhawa denese use pratibandh karna aawashyak hone ke kaaran main niche ki tarah hukm deti hu." (emphasis supplied)

12. A perusal of the aforesaid original English order of detention and the Hindi translation of the same, clearly shows, that there is material variance / discrepancies in the translation of the English order of detention. Apart from non-recording of satisfaction in the Hindi translation, the purpose of detaining the detenu is also distinct and different from the original order of detention in English, which according to us would be fatal.

13. We may refer to Section 3(1) of the COFEPOSA Act, which reads as under :-

"3. Power to make orders detaining certain persons.

(1) The Central Government or the State Government or any officer of the Central Government, not below the rank of a Joint Secretary to that Government, specially empowered for the purposes of this section by that Government, or any officer of a State Government, not below the rank of a Secretary to that Government, specially empowered for the purposes of this section by that Government, may, if satisfied, with respect to any person (including a foreigner), that, with a view to preventing him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the conservation or augmentation of foreign exchange or with a view to preventing him from-

(i) smuggling goods, or

(ii) abetting the smuggling of goods, or

(iii) engaging in transporting or concealing or keeping smuggled goods, or

(iv) dealing in, smuggled goods otherwise than by engaging in transporting or concealing or keeping smuggled goods, or

(v) harbouring persons engaged in smuggling goods or in abetting the smuggling of goods,

It is necessary so to do, make an order directing that such person be detained.

(2) .. .. ...

(3) . .. ..."

14. A perusal of the afore-stated sub-section 1 of Section 3 clearly shows that the satisfaction that has to be arrived at, by the Detaining Authority is that the detention of a person is necessary to prevent him in future from smuggling goods or abetting the smuggling of goods or engaging in transporting or concealing or keeping smuggled goods or dealing in, smuggled goods, etc. It is pertinent to note, that in the Hindi translation of the order of detention, there is no recording of the satisfaction of the Detaining Authority which is vital. Similarly, the purpose of detention i.e. the prejudicial activities of the detenu sought to be prevented mentioned in the Hindi translation of the order of detention are patently distinct and different from the original order of detention, passed under Section 3(1) of the COFEPOSA Act. We may note that the activities i.e. harbouring and encouraging / promoting smuggling activities mentioned in the Hindi order of detention are not recorded in the original order of detention which is passed under Section 3(1) of the COFEPOSA Act. Infact, the activity encourage / promote smuggling is not covered under the COFEPOSA Act. In view of the same, we are of the opinion, that the discrepancies being vital and fatal, had the potential of confusing / misleading the detenu, thereby impairing the petitioners right to make an effective representation guaranteed to him, under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India.

15. As the law relating to prevention detention is visited with serious consequences, the question of prejudice, inadvertent mistakes and typographical errors have no place and no judicial protection can be afforded to such glaring mistakes that stare in the face of the detenu. In the light of the aforesaid, we hold that non-furnishing of accurate, true and faithful Hindi translation of the order of detention is a serious and glaring infirmity, which in the facts of the case, had the potential to mislead/confuse the detenu in making an effective representation. We therefore, have no hesitation in holding that because of the variance in the Hindi translation provided to the detenu, his right to make an effective representation under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India was clearly impaired. Hence, we pass the following order:

(i) "Rule is made absolute in terms of prayer clause (a)."

(ii) Parties to act upon authenticated copy of this order.

16. In view of the disposal of the Writ Petition, the Criminal Application does not survive and the same is disposed of.