B. S. KAPADIA, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioner-detenu has filed this petition against the order of detention passed against him by the Commissioner of Police Ahmedabad under the provisions of the Gujarat Prevention of Anti-Social Activities Act 1985 on 31. 10. 1985. The petitioner was supplied with the grounds of detention. Copy of Hindi translation of the said grounds is annexed to the petition as Annexure-C to the petitioner. ( 2 ) ON perusal of the said grounds it appears that the petitioner was tried as convict for the offence under Section 25 (1) (b) of the Indian Arms Act in Criminal Case No. 406 of 1990 and that he is also convicted for the said offence by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate Court No. 4 Ahmedabad by order dated 23. 8. 1991. However on perusal of the said order it appears that the petitioner was arrested on 4. 10. 1990 and was sentenced to S. T. for 10 months and fine of Rs. 100 i. d. he was ordered to undergo further S. 1 for 15 days. It is clear that the petitioner was in Jail from 4. 10. 1990 in the said case and he must have been released immediately after conviction. However as the petitioner did not pay up the fine he had to undergo further S. 1. for 15 days as provided in the said order passed by learned Magistrate. ( 3 ) IT also appears from the grounds of detention that there were four persons who have given statements against petitioner but in the public interest their names and addresses were not disclosed to petitioner though copies of statements have been supplied to him in the language known to him. On perusal of the said statement it appears that they are in respect of incidents which have taken place approximately on 2. 1 5. 1 11. 1 and 15. 10. 1991. There was also another incident of 19. 10. 1991 for which F. I. R. is filed and the case is under investigation. The last case which is referred to is also under Section 25 (1) (b) of the Indian Arms Act. 1 5. 1 11. 1 and 15. 10. 1991. There was also another incident of 19. 10. 1991 for which F. I. R. is filed and the case is under investigation. The last case which is referred to is also under Section 25 (1) (b) of the Indian Arms Act. ( 4 ) ON the basis of the aforesaid material the detaining authority was satisfied with regard to the petitioners activity that with a view to preventing him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order it was necessary to make an order directing him to be detained. Accordingly the order of detention is passed. ( 5 ) THE validity of the order of detention is challenged in this petition. The first contention raised by Mr. A. S. Dave learned Advocate for the petitioner is that the statements of the witnesses which are recorded are vague particularly because in two statements the name or names of the person (s) who accompanied the petitioner on the date of the incident has/ have not been mentioned and that particular specific date on which the incident had taken place has not been mentioned. ( 6 ) WITH a view to appreciate his contention we have carefully gone through the said statement which are annexed to he petition. The first statement is on page 31 of the petition. On perusal of the same it is clear that it was recorded on 22. 10. 1991. In the first paragraph of the said statement details as to the petitioners residence what business he is doing and what type of man he is are given. In the 2nd paragraph it is stated that about 20 days prior to the recording of the said statement the incident has taken place in the evening at 6. 00 p. m. when he was sitting just opposite his house. It is further stated in the said statement that at that time the petitioner came there and demanded Rs. 50. 00 from him. The details about the conversation which took place between the petitioner and the said person are given. According to the said statement the petitioner brought out a revolver and put it on the chest of the said person and took out Rs. 30. 50. 00 from him. The details about the conversation which took place between the petitioner and the said person are given. According to the said statement the petitioner brought out a revolver and put it on the chest of the said person and took out Rs. 30. 00 from his purse and gave a threat that if at all he files any complaint he (petitioner) will kill all the members of his family. ( 7 ) IT may be staled that no specific date is given in the said statement but from the statement it can be ascertained that it must be the incident of 2. 1 It is not always necessary that date must be given. All the persons are not concerned with the English calendar. Some persons are more concerned with the local calendar rather than English calendar and one may not be exact in giving the date of incident. But when we read the said statement as a whole it cannot be thrown away on the ground that it is does not give particulars as to the place of incidents time of incident and the name of the person in whom the detenu gave threat. In this case details regarding date time and place of the incident have been given. In this connection Mr. Dave has relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Jehangir Khan v. Police Commissioner reported in AIR 1989 SC 1812 . In the said case statements wore held to be vague as they were not containing particulars regarding place of incident the name of the person to whom the detenu threatened with Rampuri knife etc. In the present case all the required particulars like date time and place of incident are given and therefore it cannot be said to be vague statement. ( 8 ) THE second statement or 22. 10. 1991 which is on page 37 refers to the incident taken place before 17 days from the date of recording of the statement. It is stated in the said statement that the person who gave the statement was going on the Road opposite Amraiwadi Post of rice. After school hours at about 12. 10. 1991 which is on page 37 refers to the incident taken place before 17 days from the date of recording of the statement. It is stated in the said statement that the person who gave the statement was going on the Road opposite Amraiwadi Post of rice. After school hours at about 12. 30 noon when the petitioner called him by making a gesture that when he went near the petitioner he told him that he was giving information to the police and that he was a man of police and thereupon the petitioner became angry and started giving him vulgar abuses; that the petitioner also caught hold of his neck and threw him down on the ground and was given kicks; that he raised shouts and thereupon many persons including the shop-keepers gathered there that at that time the petitioners associate came with revolver in his hand and look away amount of Rs. 60 from the pocket of the person who gave the statement; that thereafter the petitioner gave threat that if at all he files any complaint he would be killed and when the. petitioner started showing the revolver to the persons who had gathered there they started fleeing away and persons of the locality closed the doors of their houses and shop-keepers also closed their shops. This statement is challenged on the ground that name of the petitioners associate who came there has not been mentioned. To find out as to whether a particular statement is vague or not it is to be considered whether sufficient particulars regarding date time and place of the incident are given and if such particulars are given it cannot be said that the statement is vague. It is rather difficult to expect from the victim to know the name of the associate of the detenu. Merely because the name of the associate is not given it cannot be said that the statement is vague and it should be discarded. On perusal of the said statement we are satisfied that the required particulars are given and therefore it is not vague. ( 9 ) THE third statement which is on page 43 was recorded on 23. 10. 1991 i. e. after 12 days of the incident which had taken place at about 8. 00 p. m. when the person who gave the statement was going with his rickshaw near Swastik Chora. ( 9 ) THE third statement which is on page 43 was recorded on 23. 10. 1991 i. e. after 12 days of the incident which had taken place at about 8. 00 p. m. when the person who gave the statement was going with his rickshaw near Swastik Chora. It is stated in the said statement that at that time the petitioner with his two associates asked him by making a gesture to slop the rickshaw and when he slopped the rickshaw the petitioner and his associates occupied the rickshaw; that he also found a revolver with one of associates of the petitioner and therefore he asked them not to sit in the rickshaw and thereupon they gave him temptation for giving double the hire charges; that still however he refused and told the petitioner that he is a poor man; thereafter they got down from the rickshaw and caught hold of his neck and he was brought out and the petitioner gave introduction as Dada and told him that no rickshawwala can refuse him and the petitioner also gave him two to three slaps and thereafter he started raising cries and many persons gathered there. Thereupon the petitioner brought out the revolver and pointed it to his (person who gave the statement) chest and took away Rs. 90. 00 from his purse and gave him threat that if at all he files any complaint before the police the petitioner would kill him and that on account of this incident the shop-keepers of the area immediately closed the shutters of their shops. The said statement also contains the particulars regarding date time and place of incident as also other details about the incident which took place. Therefore merely because it does not give specific date of the incident it cannot be discarded as vague statement. Said statement clearly discloses that incident had taken place before 17 days from the date of recording of the statement. When approximate date time place and other details are given it cannot be said that the said statement is vague. ( 10 ) THE fourth statement was recorded after eight days from the date of incident which took place at 10. 3 a. m. Said statement was recorded on 23. When approximate date time place and other details are given it cannot be said that the said statement is vague. ( 10 ) THE fourth statement was recorded after eight days from the date of incident which took place at 10. 3 a. m. Said statement was recorded on 23. 1 It is stated in the said statement that when the person who gave the statement was sitting in his shop the petitioner came and took out different articles worth Rs. 45/- that when he demanded money of the said articles the petitioner did not give money and told that he is Dada and that no shop-keeper is demanding money from him and as money was demanded petitioner became angry and threw away the articles which he had taken and started giving vulgar abuses; that he was snatched and brought out of the shop premises by the petitioner and started giving him kicks; that thereafter he started raising cries and thereupon the petitioner brought out revolver from his pants and told that if any one comes in his way he would kill him and on saying so he went near the cash-box of his shop and took away amount of Rs. 400 which was lying in the cash-box and gave him threat that if at all he files any complaint he would kill him. It is also stated in the said statement that thereafter the petitioner went towards the persons who had gathered there with his revolver and the shop-keepers have closed their shops and for some time traffic was also stopped. The said statement also clearly discloses that the particulars of the incident including that of date time and place of the incident and therefore it cannot be said to be vague. ( 11 ) IN this connection Mr. Dave has also relied on the judgment of this Court delivered in Special Criminal Application No. 707 of 1991 on 30-7-1991. In the said case the words about a month were used in the statement and therefor it was treated as a vague statement. It may be stated that question whether a statement is vague or not depends upon the reading of the statement as a whole. It is always a question of fact. Hence it can be decided on the facts of each case. It may be stated that question whether a statement is vague or not depends upon the reading of the statement as a whole. It is always a question of fact. Hence it can be decided on the facts of each case. There cannot be any precedent on the point of holding a particular statement to be a vague statement. What is to be considered is whether the principle laid down for the purpose of finding out as to whether a particular statement is vague or not is applicable to the case or not. Looking to the facts of the present case we have come to the conclusion that the statements are not vague. Aforesaid statements cannot act as a precedent for holding the statements in the present case as vague statements. ( 12 ) MR. Dave has also relied on the judgment of this Court in the Special Criminal Application No. 1516 of 1991 decided on 16. 1. 1992. In the said case particulars with regard to date time and place of the incident were not given. Similarly approximate date of incident also was not given and names of the victims were also not given. Therefore on the facts of that case the Division Bench held that the statements were vague. However in the present case it cannot be said that names of the victims are not given. In all the aforesaid four statements the persons who were the victims have given the statements. It is true that persons who were present at the time of incidents have subsequently ran away when the petitioner and/or his associate (s) showed the revolver but they cannot be said to be victims. Merely on this ground if the statements are to be held as vague statements possibly the Society would never get justice. ( 13 ) THE only material factor to be considered in the question of vagueness of the statement is whether the detenu has any opportunity to make representation. If the particulars like date time and place and other details of the incident are not given the detenu would not have an opportunity to have his say in the matter and therefore he may be deprived of his right to make representation as provided under Article 22 (5) or the Constitution of India. However that is not so in the present case. However that is not so in the present case. On reading each statement as a whole it is clear that they are full statements giving all the required particulars and they can never be said to be vague statements. Under the circumstances the first contention raised by Mr. Dave cannot be accepted. ( 14 ) THE second contention raised by Mr. Dave is that looking to the grounds of detention each and every ground is against individual and affects at the most law and order situation but it cannot be said to be prejudicial to public order as required for passing the order of detention under the PASA. The question whether a particular act affects the law and order situation only or it has any effect on the society or it is prejudicial to public order would not only depend on the individual act but its impact reach and effect on the society. Therefore before going into the facts of the present case it would be appropriate to refer to the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Mrs. Harpreet Kaur Harvinder Singh Bedi v. State of Maharashtra and Another Judgment Today 1992 (1) SC 502. In the said case Honble Justice Anand speaking for the bench in para-11 has referred to the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Ram Manohar Lohia v. State of Bihar AIR 1966 SC 740 wherein the Supreme Court has observed as follows:"one has to imagine three concentric circles. Law and order represents the largest circle within which is the next circle representing public order and the smallest circle represents security of State. It is then easy to see that an act may affect law and order but not public order just as an act may affect public order but not security of the State". In the judgment in the case of Mrs. Harpreet Kaur (supra) in para 12 the Judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Arun Ghosh v. State of West Bengal (1970) I SCC 98 has been referred to wherein by way of illustration the distinction between law and order and public order has been shown as under:"take the case of assault on girls. A guest at a hotel may kiss or make advances to half a dozen chambermaids. A guest at a hotel may kiss or make advances to half a dozen chambermaids. He may annoy them and also the management but he does not cause disturbance of public order. He may even have a fracas with the friends of one of the girls but even then it would be a case of breach of law and order only. Take another case of a man who molest a woman in lonely places. As a result of his activities girls going to colleges and schools are in constant danger and fear. Women going for their ordinary business are afraid of being waylaid and assaulted. The activity of this man in its essential quality is not different from the act of other man but in its potentiality and in its effect upon the public tranquillity there is a vast difference. The act of the man who molests the girls in lonely places causes disturbances in the even tempo of public order. He disturbs the society and the community. His act makes all the women apprehensive of their honour and he can be said to be causing disturbance of public order and not merely committing individual actions which may be taken note of by the criminal prosecution agencies. ( 15 ) AFTER referring to the said judgments in para-25 of the judgment it is observed as under:"25 There is no gainsaying that in the present state of law a criminal can be punished only when the prosecution is able to lead evidence and prove the case against an accused person beyond a reasonable doubt. Where the prosecution is unable to lead evidence to prove its case the case fails though that failure does not imply no crime had been committed. Where the prosecution is unable to lead evidence to prove its case the case fails though that failure does not imply no crime had been committed. Where the prosecution case fails because witnesses are reluctant on account of fear of retaliation to come forward to depose against an accused obviously the crime would go unpunished and the criminal would be encouraged In the ultimate analysis it is the society which suffers Respect for law has to be maintained in the interest of the society and discouragement of a criminal is one of the ways to maintain it The objectionable activities of a detenu have therefore to be judged in the totality of the circumstances to find out whether those activity have any prejudicial effect on the society as a whole or not If the society and not only an individual suffers on account of the questionable activities of a person then those activities are prejudicial to the maintenance of public order and are not merely prejudicial to the maintenance of law and order" ( 16 ) NOW it would be convenient to revert the facts of the present case There are four statements relating to different incidents took place within a period of 15 days in the month of October 1991 after the petitioner was released on his undergoing sentence in the Criminal Case No. 406 of 1990 as he was convicted for the offence under Section 25 (1) (b) of the Indian Arms Act It is pertinent to note that another criminal case is also pending investigation since 19. 10. 10. 1991 So far as the said four statements are concerned they clearly disclose that the petitioners activity would affect not only the individuals who are the victims who have given the statements but also will have an impact on the society inasmuch as if such activities are allowed to be continued the members of the Society will have apprehension for the safety of life and property If the petitioner-detenu continues his activities of beating the persons and extorting money as four such incidents had taken place within a period of 15 days it is bound to affect the public peace and public order The individual act is not to be considered but we have to consider the totality of the acts done by him see whether it would have any impact on the society or not as laid down in the aforesaid judgment of the Supreme Court. When the petitioners activities are considered accordingly it leaves no room for doubt that it will have prejudicial effect on the society Under the circumstances it cannot be said that it is merely prejudicial to the maintenance of law and order and not prejudicial to the maintenance of public order Accordingly we do not find any substance in this contention also ( 17 ) THE third contention raised by Mr. Dave is that so far as the incident of filing F. I. R. under Section 25 (1) (b) of the Indian Arms Act on 19. Dave is that so far as the incident of filing F. I. R. under Section 25 (1) (b) of the Indian Arms Act on 19. 1 is concerned the petitioner has not been supplied with the copies of the Panchanama and remand application and therefore vital documents are not supplied to him He has already admitted that copy of the F. I. R is given to the petitioner Documents would become vital when the detaining authority makes use thereof and places reliance on it If copies of the documents which are made use of by the obtaining authority are not supplied to the detenu certainly it would affect his right of making adequate representation In the present case it is not pointed out that the detaining authority has relied on the copy of either Panchnama or the remand application Therefore said documents cannot be said to be vital documents inasmuch as no reliance is placed on the same by the detaining authority Copies of these documents were not supplied to the detenu as they would be only supporting the allegations made in the F. I. R. and therefore at the most they would be subsidiary documents to support what is stated in the F. I. R. Under the circumstances F. I. R. is vital and translation of the same is already supplied to the petitioner. In that view of the matter the argument of Mr. Dave that the petitioner was not supplied with the vital documents and therefore his right to make representation is affected cannot be accepted. ( 18 ) THE last contention raised by Mr. Dave is that the petitioner is supplied with the Hindi translation of the relevant documents which were originally in Gujarati language and as the petitioner was not supplied with the copies of the original documents in Gujarati language his right to make representation as provided under Article 22 of the Constitution of India is affected. The petitioner who is from Uttar Pradesh knows Hindi language and therefore he has been supplied with the copies of grounds of detention and other vital documents in Hindi language. If at all he was supplied the original document in Gujarati language possibly they would have been Greek and Latin to him and he would have been in a position to compare as to whether there is any vital difference between the original documents and Hindi translation thereof. If at all he was supplied the original document in Gujarati language possibly they would have been Greek and Latin to him and he would have been in a position to compare as to whether there is any vital difference between the original documents and Hindi translation thereof. Therefore merely on the imaginary ground that original documents which are in a language not known to the petitioner-detenu are not supplied to him and therefore it would affect his fundamental right to make representation cannot be accepted particularly when he has been supplied with the Hindi translation of the said documents. ( 19 ) HOWEVER during the course of argument we have directed Mr. K. H. Mehta learned Addl. PP to give the file to Mr. Dave learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner to enable him to go through the original documents and compare the same with the translation supplied to the petitioner to find out as to whether there is any vital difference between the original Gujarati language documents and the Hindi translation thereof. On comparison Mr. Dave could not find any vital and/or material difference between the two sets of documents. When that is so merely because the translation appears to be free translation and that it has not been done by the expert translator would be no ground for coming to the conclusion that petitioners right as provided under Article 22 (5) of the Constitution is affected. The question whether provisions of Article 22 (5) of the Constitution of India is violated or not depends upon the facts of each case. If original documents are not supplied to the detenu but translation of vital and relevant documents are given and if it is found on comparison that there is no vital difference between the original documents and the translation thereof one cannot come to a conclusion that provision of Article 22 (5) of the Constitution of India are violated. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case the judgment of this Court reported in 1987 GLH 24 relied on by Mr. Dave learned Advocate for the petitioner would not be helpful to the petitioner. ( 20 ) WE therefore do not find any substance in any of the contention raised by Mr. Dave learned Advocate for the petitioner-detenu. In result the petition fails and stands rejected. Rule is accordingly discharged. .