R. K. Manisana, J - In this application for habeas corpus, the wife of the detenu Binoykumar Sharma alias Jayadev alias BK has questioned the legality of the detention of her husband under section 3 of the Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988. 2. The only question which has been raised in this petition is that the order of detention, the grounds of detention and the documents referred to and relied on were not communicated in the language understood by the detenu (Manipuri) so that the detenu could make an effective represe­ntation to the Government against the order of detention and, therefore, there was non-compliance with Article 22 (5) of the Constitution. 3. Before dealing with the rival contentions of the learned counsel for the parties, it would be pertinent to note that the detention order the grounds of detention and the documents referred to and relied on were drawn up in English. The records produced before us indicate that, when the grounds of detention were served on the detenu, the order of detention, the grounds of detention and the documents annexed thereto were shown to have been read over and explained to the detenu and the detenu signed acknow­ledging the receipt of the aforesaid documents endorsing in his own language that the detention order, the grounds of detention, etc. have been received and the same were read over and explained to him and he understood the ^ contents. The detenu submitted a representation written in English and also signed in English. The records further show that the detenu appeared in HSLC Examination from a local school in 1954 but he failed to pass the examination. When the order of rejection of the representation submitted by the detenu was communicated to the detenu he acknowledged the receipt of the order by writing "received a similar copy" in English. Admittedly, no translations were furnished to the detenu. 4. Mr. N. Kumarjit Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, has conte­nded that the fact that the grounds were explained to the detenu and that he made endorsement in Manipuri indicates that the grounds were not communi­cated in the language known to the detenu to enable him to make effective representation. Mr Irabat Singh, learned State Counsel, has contended that the detenu has been feigning ignorance of English or he has workable knowledge of English. 5. Mr Irabat Singh, learned State Counsel, has contended that the detenu has been feigning ignorance of English or he has workable knowledge of English. 5. It is well settled that the detention order, the grounds of detention and the documents referred to and relied on are to be communicated to the detenu in the language understood by him so that the detenu can make effective representation against his detention. In Kubic Dariusz vs. Union of India, 1990 Cri LJ 796, it has been held that it will be open for the Court to consider the facts and the circumstances of a case to reasonably ascertain whether the detenu is feining ignorance of the language or he has such working knowledge as to understand the grounds of detention and the contents of the documents furnished. In that case, the Supreme Court has also observed that whether the statement of the detenu that he does not know the language in which the grounds were furnished was correct or not it would involve a subjective determination. It would, of course, always be safer course in such cases to furnish translations in the detenu's own language. 6. Let us now examine the case on hand. Admittedly, no translations into Manipuri which the detenu understood were furnished. The grounds and other documents annexed to the petition were shown to have been read over and explained to the detenu, as already stated. The detention order, the grounds of detention and the documents referred to and relied on consisted of about 50 pages. On the facts and circumstances of the case, we hold that the detenu had no sufficient knowledge of English to understand the grounds of detention and the documents furnished to him for making an effective representation. 7. The next question which, therefore, arises for consideration is whether the explanation of grounds of detention to the detenu, who has no suffi­cient knowledge of English, would be in sufficient compliance with Article 22(5) of the Constitution. At this stage, it may be helpful to refer to a decision of the Supreme Court reported as Lallubhai vs. Union of India (1981) 2 SCC 427 : 1981 Cr. LJ 228. In that case the detenu did not know English but the grounds were drawn up in English and the Police Inspector while serving the grounds of detention fully explained the grounds in Gujrati to the detenu. LJ 228. In that case the detenu did not know English but the grounds were drawn up in English and the Police Inspector while serving the grounds of detention fully explained the grounds in Gujrati to the detenu. But, no translations of the grounds of detention into Gujrati were furnished to the detenu. In the context of that case, the Supreme Court has held that there was no sufficient compliance with the mandate of Article 22(5) of the Constitution. In view of the above decision of the Supreme Court, we hold that there was no sufficient compliance with Article 22 (5) in the present case. 8. For the reasons stated above, the order of detention is quashed. The detenu Shri Binoykumar Sharma shall be released forthwith, if he is not required in any other case. 9. In the result the petition is allowed. No costs.