JUDGMENT - VISHNU SAHAI, J.:---Through this writ petition preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the petitioner, who styles himself as the father of the detenu Ehatteshyam Mohammed Rafique Ansary has impugned the detention order dated 29th January, 1999 passed by the 1st respondent Mr. R.H. Mendonca, the Commissioner of Police, Brihan Mumbai, 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). 2. The detention order along with the grounds of detention also dated 29th January, 1999 was served on the detenu on 30th January, 1999. Xerox copies of the detention order and the grounds of detention are annexed to this writ petition. 3. The prejudicial activities of the detenu on which the impugned detention order is founded are stipulated in the grounds of detention. They comprised of one C.R. detailed as ground 4(a)(ii) and two in-camera statements. The C.R. referred in ground 4(a)(ii) in C.R. No. 321/98 registered on a complaint dated 9-12-1998 lodged by Abdul Kalam Javed Siddique under sections 324, 452, 427 and 506(ii), 34, Indian Penal Code at Police Station Nirmal Nagar, against the detenu and others. The in-camera statements are of witnesses "A" and "B" and are dated 29-12-1998 and 30-12-1998 and are contained in ground 4(b)(i) and ground 4(b)(ii), respectively. They also incriminate the detenu. 4. We have heard Mr. C.K. Talekar for the petitioner and Mr. S.G. Deshmukh A.P.P. for respondents. Although Mr. C.K. Talekar learned Counsel for the petitioner has pleaded a large number of grounds, running from ground 5(i) to 5(x) in this writ petition, but since in our view this petition deserves to succeed on the reply of Counsel for the respondents in respect of ground 5(ix) we are not adverting to other grounds. In ground 5(ix) it has been averred that the detention order, the grounds of detention and the other documents are in English and their translation in Marathi and Hindi is wholly or partly illegible. There is a reference to four such documents viz. those at pages 72, 92, 109 and 117. The document at page 92 is a copy of the injury report of Abdul Kalam Javed Master referred to in ground 4(a)(ii) of the grounds of detention. The said injury report is in English. There is a reference to four such documents viz. those at pages 72, 92, 109 and 117. The document at page 92 is a copy of the injury report of Abdul Kalam Javed Master referred to in ground 4(a)(ii) of the grounds of detention. The said injury report is in English. Its perusal shows that the name of victim is not legible. Mr. Deshmukh learned Counsel for the respondents urged that this would make no difference because the detenu knew Hindi and invited our attention to the Hindi translation of the injury report contained in the original file, a copy of which was given to the detenu. From its perusal it appears that the said translation is legible but it is not true and faithful. In the original injury report which is in English one of the injuries mentioned is superficial C.L.W.(L) frontal region above hair line, about 1 cm. x 2 cm. x 5 cm. deep. In the Hindi translation of the said injury report as contained in the original file the following things are missing: (a) Superficial; (b) C.L.W. and (c) 1 cm. x 2 cm. x 5 cm. deep Since admittedly the copy of the injury report supplied to the detenu in Hindi, was a copy of the Hindi translation of the injury contained in the original file, the detenu, who only knew Hindi, could have been mislead and his right to make an effective representation under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India, could have been impaired. 5. In such a situation we feel that although the ground 5(ix) pleaded in the writ petition is untenable but since in our view the Hindi translation of the injury report was not a complete and faithful translation of the original injury report which was in English the detenu's right to make an effective representation under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India was impaired. 6. We have taken this view in view of the ratio laid down in two decisions of the Supreme Court, the first being reported in A.I.R. 1980 S.C. 1983 (Smt. Icchu Devi v. Union of India and others)1, wherein in para 4 the Supreme Court has held that the principle of strict pleadings does not apply to a habeas corpus petition. We have taken this view in view of the ratio laid down in two decisions of the Supreme Court, the first being reported in A.I.R. 1980 S.C. 1983 (Smt. Icchu Devi v. Union of India and others)1, wherein in para 4 the Supreme Court has held that the principle of strict pleadings does not apply to a habeas corpus petition. The second is that reported in A.I.R. 1981 S.C. 1126 (Harish Pahwa v. State of U.P. and others)2, wherein the Supreme Court has in substance laid down that even if a point is not pleaded but if the material necessary for its determination is available on record it can be raised. 7. In such a situation we feel that it would be difficult to sustain the impugned detention order. 8. For the said reasons we allow this writ petition; quash and set aside the impugned detention order; direct that the detenu, Ehatteshyam Mohammed Rafique Ansary, shall be released forthwith unless wanted in some other case; and make the rule absolute. Writ petition allowed. -----