JUDGMENT- VISHNU SAHAI, J.:--- 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). 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: rjh ojhy o.kZukP;k blekauh fjOgkWYojpk /kkd nk[koøu ekÖ;k o fHkeflax ;kaps rkC;krhy jks[k jdesph tcjh pksjh dsyh EgÆûu ek>h R;kaps fo:) rØkj vlûu dk;nsf'j dkjokbZ gks.skl fouarh vkgs- Mr. Deshmukh urged that the English translation of the said lines would be as under:- "Therefore, my complaint is that the above described persons have robbed me and Bhimsingh by showing revolvers and have forcibly take away cash and therefore legal action be taken." Mr. Tripathi concedes that this is the correct translation. The grievance of Mr. Tripathi is that in the Hindi translation of the F.I.R. of C.R. No. 134 of 1998, there is no mention of the Marathi portion quoted above. Mr. Deshmukh learned Counsel for the respondents urged that the absence of the above portion in the Hindi translation would not affect the detenu's right to make an effective representation. He invited our attention to para 11 of the return of the Detaining Authority wherein he has mentioned that since the said para is the summing up of the F.I.R.; contains only a request for taking action against the miscreants, and does not contain any facts which are not mentioned in the F.I.R. the detenu's right to make a representation under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India was not violated. We find merit in the reply of the Detaining Authority. In our view, since a perusal of the said para shows that it does not contain any facts which are not stated in the F.I.R. the detenu's right to make a representation under Article 22(5) of The Constitution of India has not been violated. 4.The second instance in the contention of Mr. In our view, since a perusal of the said para shows that it does not contain any facts which are not stated in the F.I.R. the detenu's right to make a representation under Article 22(5) of The Constitution of India has not been violated. 4.The second instance in the contention of Mr. Tripathi is that whereas in the original identification memo of C.R. No. 134 of 1998, which is in Marathi, names of 12 persons including dummies and the detenu are mentioned in the Hindi translation supplied to the detenu, names of 11 persons, including the dummies and the detenu have been mentioned. Since in our view, the name of the detenu figures both in the identification memo in Marathi as also in its Hindi translation, his right to make an effective representation under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India was not impaired. 5.The third instance is with respect to a wrong and incomplete translation of the F.I.R. of C.R. No. 140 of 1998 lodged by Head Constable Madhukar Bandu Kamble at Police Station Nagpada, under sections 399, 402, 120-B I.P.C r/w 3/25 of the Arms Act. The grievance of Mr. Tripathi is that the original F.I.R. which is in Marathi is different from the Hindi translation supplied to the detenu. He urged that in the Hindi translation of the F.I.R. there are three mistakes namely:- (a) in place of C.R. No. 140 of 1998, C.R. No. 134 of 1998 has been mentioned; (b) in place of 21-4-1998, 16-4-1998 is mentioned; (c) in place of sections 399, 402 120 B I.P.C. r/w 3/25 of the Arms Act, section 397/34 I.P.C. has been mentioned. Mr. Deshmukh learned Counsel for the respondents vehemently refuted the correctness of Mr. Tripathi's submission and showed us the Hindi translation of the F.I.R. contained in the original file, a copy of which was supplied to the detenu. We find from a perusal of the file that the detenu has acknowledged the receipt of the Hindi translation of the F.I.R. and the translated copy in Hindi does not contain any of the three mistakes pointed out by Mr. Tripathi. Hence, this instance shown by Mr. Tripathi also does not have any merit. 6.It should be borne in mind that inaccuracy simplicitor in translation does not vitiate a preventive detention order. Tripathi. Hence, this instance shown by Mr. Tripathi also does not have any merit. 6.It should be borne in mind that inaccuracy simplicitor in translation does not vitiate a preventive detention order. The same is vitiated on the said vice if on account of it, the detenu's right to make an effective representation under Article 22(5) of The Constitution of India is impaired. Whether in a given case, the right of the detenu has been impaired would depend on the nature of inaccuracy. It is impossible to catalogue nature of inaccuracies in a translation which would impair the said right of the detenu. Any list can only be illustrative and not exhaustive. Broadly speaking, if the inaccuracy in translation pertains to the omission of some basic facts on which the detention order is founded or the inaccuracy is such that the detenu may have been misled or confused at the time of making representation, the detention order would stand vitiated on the ground that the detenu's right to make an effective representation under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India has been violated. However, it is easy to categorise inaccuracies of the converse type. They are inaccuracies which are innocucus (as in the present case) and have no bearing on the detenu's right to make an effective representation under Article 22(5) of The Constitution of India. 7.For the said reasons, we do not find any merit in Ground 8(B). As mentioned earlier, Mr. Tripathi has not pressed the other grounds. 8.In the result, we find no merit in this writ petition and dismiss the same. Rule is discharged. Petition dismissed. ----- 2000(5) Bom.C.R. 208 Before: T.K. Chandrashekhara Das, J. Dr. (Mrs.) Jayashree Chandrakant Sangoi another ..... Appellants. Versus D.P. Mokashi another ..... Respondent. Criminal Writ Petition No. 1478 of 1991, decided on 13-10-1998. Bombay Municipal Corporation Act, 1888, Secs. 514(c) 353-A---Constitution of India, Arts. 226 227---Unauthorised occupation---Limitation for complaint---B.M.C. having noticed unauthorised occupation of co-operative society flats in August 1985 launching prosecution under section 353-A in December 1985---Challenge on the ground that it ought to have been launched within 3 months time---Contention that prosecution launched after due notice was within 3 months time---Held, there is no provision under B.M.C. Act for issue of notice for vacations under section 353-A before launching the prosecution. Notice could not extend limitation time. Petition allowed. Advocates appeared : S.L. Ahuja, for the petitioner. Notice could not extend limitation time. Petition allowed. Advocates appeared : S.L. Ahuja, for the petitioner. Kedar, for respondent No. 1. Mrs. P.H. Kantharia, A.P.P., for the State. T.K.CHANDRASHEKHARA DAS, J.:-----The writ petition arises out of a Judgement rendered by the Metropolitan Magistrate, 41st Court, Shindewadi, Dadar in Criminal Case No. 6115/M.E. of 1985 dated 19th April, 1991 and Revisional order dated 5th October, 1991 passed by the Sessions Court, Greater Bombay in Criminal Revision Application No. 133 of 199. Both these orders are under challenge in this writ petition. It is averred in the writ petition that the petitioner has purchased a flat at 6th floor, as flat No. 34 in City Survey No. 1/118, Lalbaug, Bombay. The said flat was constructed by M/s. Maneklal Anandji Meghaji from whom the petitioner purchased the flat and it is disclosed from the materials available on record that the building licence has to be obtained from the Corporation by the aforesaid builder. After completion of the building, the petitioner was permitted to occupy by the builder and the petitioner also along with other occupiers formed Co-operative Society called "Meghchhaya Flat Owners Association". It is alleged that on 16th August, 1985 the officers of the Municipal Corporation made inspection of the flat and found that the petitioner was occupying the said flat without certificate of occupancy being issued by the Municipal Council. Accordingly complaint was filed against the petitioner before the Metropolitan Magistrate, 41st Court, Shindewadi, Dadar for the alleged offence under section 353-A of the Bombay Municipal Corporation Act. The Magistrate fined them for Rs. 200/- and in default S.I. for four days and Revision Court confirmed this sentence. 2.I heard learned Counsel for the petitioner Shri. S.L. Ahuja and Mr. Kedar for respondent No. 1 and Mrs. Kantharia, A.P.P. for State. 3.The Counsel for the petitioner submits among other things that the prosecution is time barred in view of section 514(c) of the Bombay Municipal Corporation Act, 1888. According to this provision, the prosecution has to be launched within three months next after the commission of the offence. Admittedly, the officers of the Corporation visited the premises on 16th August, 1985 and found that he was occupying the flat without obtaining occupancy certificate. Undisputedly, the complaint was filed on 13-12-1985 which is beyond three months. According to this provision, the prosecution has to be launched within three months next after the commission of the offence. Admittedly, the officers of the Corporation visited the premises on 16th August, 1985 and found that he was occupying the flat without obtaining occupancy certificate. Undisputedly, the complaint was filed on 13-12-1985 which is beyond three months. The learned Counsel for the 1st respondent submits that after knowing that the petitioner is occupying unauthorisedly, the Municipal Council has issued notice to vacate and taking into account the notice period, according to him, the prosecution is within time. I fail to understand this contention of the learned Counsel for the respondent. There is no provision in the Act that before launching the prosecution, for the offence committed under section 353-A a notice should be issued. Of course in the fairness, notice was issued by the Bombay Municipal Corporation but that does not extend the statutory limits prescribed by the Act and that cannot be set up as defence for sustaining the prosecution which is filed beyond three months. In view of this objection raised by the learned Counsel for the petitioner has to be sustained and on that count alone, the petitioner ought to have been acquitted. 4.In the result, writ petition is allowed. 5.The orders impugned in this writ petition namely order dated 19th April, 1991 and Revision Order dated 5th October, 1991 are hereby quashed and set aside. The petitioner stands acquitted. 6.Fine, if any, paid by the petitioner, can be adjusted towards the amount, if any, due to the Corporation. Rule is made absolute in the above terms. Petition allowed. -----