JUDGMENT - P.S. BRAHME, J.:---The petitioner who is mother of detenu Jayesh @ Jayu Mahendra Master, is challenging the detention order dated 12-9-2001 passed by the respondent No. 2-The Commissioner of Police, Brihan Mumbai (Shri M.N. Singh) under section 3 of the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slum Lords, Bootleggers, Drug Offenders and Dangerous Persons Act, 1981 (Amended in 1996). 2. The detention order alongwith the grounds of detention also dated 12-9-2001 was served on the detenu on 13-9-2001. Copy of the detention order is annexed to the petition as Annexure: P-1. 3. The prejudicial activities of detenu, on which the impugned detention order is founded are stipulated in grounds of detention. They are comprised of one C.R. namely C.R. No. 184/2001 detailed as ground No. 4(a)(v) and C.R. No. 189/2001 detailed as ground 4(b)(ii). C.R. No. 184/2001 referred in ground 4(a)(v) was registered on a complaint of Shri Anil Dnyanu Surve under sections 324, 34 of I.P.C. at V.P. Road, Police Station against detenu and his associates and subsequently section 387 I.P.C. was added in this case. The C.R. referred in 4(b)(vi) in C.R. No. 189/2001 was registered on the complaint of Shri Rajendra Gawali against detenu and his associates, under sections 399, 402 I.P.C. read with section 37(1)(a)-22-51 r/w 3.25 Arms Act. The Detaining Authority found that detenu was a violent type of dangerous person who has taken to the life of crime for the sake of easy money. He was engaged in terrorizing criminal activities in the localities of Kumbharwada, P.B. Marg and areas adjoining thereto within the jurisdiction of V.P. Road, Police Station in Brihan Mumbai. He had unleashed a reign of terror in the above localities and areas and had thereby became a perpetual danger to the life and property of the people residing and carrying out their daily avocations in the said localities and areas. The Detaining Authority having had subjective satisfaction, on the basis of the material on record, that the detenu was likely to revert to similar criminal activities prejudicial to the maintenance of public order in future and therefore, it was necessary to detain him and has thus issued the impugned order of detention. 4. We have heard Mr. Daga, learned Advocate for the petitioner and Mr. Mirza, learned A.P.P., for the respondents. Although Mr. 4. We have heard Mr. Daga, learned Advocate for the petitioner and Mr. Mirza, learned A.P.P., for the respondents. Although Mr. Daga, learned Counsel for the petitioner has pleaded a large number of grounds running from ground No. 6 to 17 in this petition, but since in our view this petition deserves to succeed on the reply of the Counsel for the respondents in respect of ground No. 17, we are not adverting to other grounds. 5. In ground No. 17, it has been averred that in paragraph 4(a)(v) the word “You and your said associates”, is an omission in Hindi translation supplied to the detenu. Moreover, in the said paragraph of ground it is averred that on the complaint of one Survey a case vide C.R. No. 184/2001 was registered against you and your associates. It is submitted that in the F.I.R. at page 39 of the charge-sheet it is alleged against unknown persons, this infirmity and supplying false information to detenue has also caused prejudice and also further it vitiates the subjective satisfaction of the Detaining Authority. That further in ground No. 4(b)(II) it is said that C.R. No. 189/2001 was registered against you and your associates. The word “against you and your associates” is also an omission in the Hindi translation. In amended para 17(c) of the petition it is contended that in ground No. 4(b)(iv) it is mentioned that your associate Siddhu Mayekar was found in possession of chopper which were likely to be used in commission of this offence. The said firearm ammunitions and weapon were seized under a panchanama and they were arrested in this case. It is contended that the Hindi translation of the aforesaid para is totally incorrect and further there is an omission. The English version reads “Your associate Siddhu Mayekar was found in possession of chopper which were likely to be used in commission of this offence”. While the Hindi translation of the same reads “that the chopper which was seized was used by the present detenu in the commission of the crime.” Moreover, the English version reads that firearm weapons etc. were seized and they were arrested in this case. Whereas the Hindi translation reads that “detenu was arrested alongwith other accused, and weapons. That the word “during investigation your associate Batuk Kharva and Siddhu Mayekar admitted having committed these offences alongwith your said associates”, is incorrectly translated. were seized and they were arrested in this case. Whereas the Hindi translation reads that “detenu was arrested alongwith other accused, and weapons. That the word “during investigation your associate Batuk Kharva and Siddhu Mayekar admitted having committed these offences alongwith your said associates”, is incorrectly translated. In English there is reference that as mentioned above as such they were shown arrested in that case on 18-7-2001, whereas Hindi translation reads that “the detenu was arrested on 18-7-2001”. 6. Respondent No. 2 in his additional affidavit denied all the averments in Para 12 of the petition and in para 17 of the amended petition. It is stated that there is omission of the words in Hindi translation of ground 4(a)(v). 7. It is further stated that as per the advise of the doctor the statement of the victim could not be recorded at the time of registration of offence and therefore, complaint was filed by his relative Anil Dnyanu Survey on 10-7-2001 and at the time of filing of the complaint, complainant was not aware of the names of the assailants and therefore, the first information report was registered against unknown persons. It was on 17-7-2001 when further statements of the victim was recorded, the names of the detenue and his three associates were disclosed. The contention raised in para 17(b) of the amended petition is denied. 8. As regards the contentions raised in para 17(c), it is stated that the translation of the words “likely to be used” also connotes that as “ISTEMAL KARNEVALE THE” this means that the detenue and his associates were likely to use the same. The word “ISTEMAL KIYA THA” cannot be strictly understood as “it was used”, but it is to be also understood as it was likely to be used and therefore, it is a correct translation of the said words in Hindi. It is further contended that the translation does not affect in any manner, right of detenu to make effective representation. It is stated that due to such incorrect translation no prejudice has been caused to the detenu. There is no omission of the words “were seized under the panchanama” in Hindi translation. It is contended that there is no incorrect translation, about the words “during investigation your associates Batuk Kharva and Siddhu Mayekar having committed this offence alongwith you and your said associates”. There is no omission of the words “were seized under the panchanama” in Hindi translation. It is contended that there is no incorrect translation, about the words “during investigation your associates Batuk Kharva and Siddhu Mayekar having committed this offence alongwith you and your said associates”. The translation clearly says that during the investigation your associates Batuk Kharva and Siddhu Mayekar admitted having committed this offence with associates. It is contended that the averments in paragraphs 12 and 17 of the petitioner about incorrect translation as well as omission, is totally incorrect and there is no omission of any words in Hindi translation. It has not caused prejudice to the detenu. 9. Mr. Daga, learned Counsel for the petitioner pointed out that there is material omission in Hindi translation of the grounds of detention in paragraph 4(b)(iv). In order to have proper appreciation about infirmities and incorrectness in the translation, it is desirable to reproduce the contentions in ground 4(b)(iv) so also Hindi translation thereof: “4(b)(iv) On 18-7-2001 on reliable information your associates Batuk Kharwa and Siddharth @ Siddhu Mayekar were arrested by police at 3rd Kumbharwada area and they were searched in the presence of panchas, when your associate Batuk Kharwa were found in possession of a revolver with 2 live cartidges and your associate Siddhu Mayekar was found in possession of chopper which were likely to be used in the commission of this offence. The said firearm, ammunitions and weapon “were seized under a panchanama” and they were arrested in this case. Your other associate Sachin Pandurang Walekar arrested on 8-8-2001 in the said offence. During investigation your associates Batuk Kharwa and Siddhu Mayekar admitted having committed this offence alongwith your said associates. Investigation revealed that your associates Batuka Kharwa and Siddhu Mayekar were also involved in V.P. Road Police Station, C.R. No. 184/2001, as mentioned above as such they were shown arrested in that case on 18-7-2001.” Hindi translation of the same 4(b)(iv) is as under:--- ^^4¼c½¼4½ 18@7@2001 ds fnu [kcjds eqrkchd dkjokba djds frljs dqaHkkjokMk bykdsls vkids lkFkhnkj cVqd [kkjok] fl/nkFka mQa fl/nq e;sdj dks vVd fd;k Fkk! iapks ds lkeus yh x;h ryk'kh;ksa esa cVqd [kkjok ds iklls ,d fjOgkYpj vkSj nks thank dkMrql] vkidk lkFkhnkj fl/nq e;sdj ds iklls ,d pkWij cjken dh;k Fkk tkss vkius bl xqukg ds yh;s bLrseky fd;k Fkk! iapks ds lkeus yh x;h ryk'kh;ksa esa cVqd [kkjok ds iklls ,d fjOgkYpj vkSj nks thank dkMrql] vkidk lkFkhnkj fl/nq e;sdj ds iklls ,d pkWij cjken dh;k Fkk tkss vkius bl xqukg ds yh;s bLrseky fd;k Fkk! gfFk;kjksa ds lkFk vki vkSj vkids lkFkhnkj dks bl dslesa vVd dh;k Fkk! blh dsles vkidk lkFkhnkj lfpu ikaMqjax ckysdj dks 8@8@2001 ds fnu vVd dh;k Fkk! rgdhdkrds njeh;ku vkids lkFkhnkj cVqd [kkjok vkSj fl/nq e;sdjus ;g xqukg geus dh;k Fkk ,slk crk;k! rgdhdkr ds nkSjku fo-i-ekzxZ iqyhl Fkkus ds xq-j- dzekad 182@2001 eas vki vkSj vkids lkFkhnkjksa dk lgHkkx Fkk ;s irk pyus ds ckn vkidks bl dslesa 18@7@2001 dks vVd dh;k Fkk! The contention of Mr. Daga, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner is that because of these omissions and incorrect translation much prejudice has been caused to the detenu and thereby his right of making effective representation under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India has been materially affected. 10. Mr. Mirza, learned A.P.P. on the other hand submitted that respondent No. 2 has explained in his reply about the omissions and discrepancies in the translation. No prejudice has been caused to the detenu as the omissions are inconsequential and therefore detenu's right to make effective representation is no way impaired. He placed reliance on the decision of this Court reported in 2001(5) Bom.C.R. 718 (Bhaskar A. Shetty v. M.N. Singh and others)1, it has been observed in paragraph 6 and 7 as under: “6. Perusal of Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India would show that the object of supplying to the detenu the grounds of detention i.e. earliest opportunity is to enable him to make effective representation at the earliest opportunity. It is well settled that the grounds of detention also included the material on which the grounds are founded and both the ground of detention and the material on which the grounds of detention are founded should be supplied to the detenu in the language intelligible to him and if the same is not done, then only the detenu would not be able to exercise his right of making effective representation.” “7. In deciding the question whether a detention order is rendered unsustainable on account of incorrect translation what has to be borne in mind by courts is as to whether on account of any infirmity in the translation, the detenu's right to make a representation has been prejudiced or frustrated. If in a given case, the answer is in the affirmative, the detention order would have to be struck down but if it is in the negative, the said infirmities would be classified as inconsequential and the detention order would be sustained.” 11. Mr. Daga, learned Counsel appearing for the detenu placed reliance on the decision reported in 2002(2) Mh.L.J. page 200 (Mohd. Rafiq Abdul Majid v. R.H. Mendonca and others)2, to substantiate his contention that incorrect translation has misled the detenu and his right to make effective representation under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India is impaired. It was found that infirmity was such that the detenu was mislead and his right to make effective representation under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India, could have been impaired. 12. Mr. Daga, placed reliance on the decision of this Court reported in 2001(5) Bom.C.R. 450 (Imran @ Raju Munna Qureshi v. Shri A.N. Roy and others)3, wherein it is found that variance between English version and its translation in Marathi on the said vital aspect, the detenu is misled and therefore his right to make effective representation under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India is impaired and thereby rendering detention order as well continued detention bad and illegal. 13. Mr. Daga, learned Counsel placed reliance on the decision reported in 2000 M.R. (Crime) 444 (Ismail B. Kapadia v. Commissioner of Police, Brihan Mumbai and others)4. In that case there was omission of one ground in Hindi translation of the grounds of detention. It was found that it was a serious omission which may go to the roots of the rights of the detenu in making effective representation. It was observed that, once the translation of the order and documents served on the detenu, it is incumbent upon the Detaining Authority to supply true and faithfully translation without any omission. This Court further observed that under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India detenu is armed with a right to make representation on the earliest opportunity when detention order is issued by the Detaining Authority. This Court further observed that under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India detenu is armed with a right to make representation on the earliest opportunity when detention order is issued by the Detaining Authority. In fact the object to supply the detenu, the grounds of detention at the earliest opportunity is to enable him to make a representation. It is also settled that the grounds of detention also include the material on which the grounds are founded and both the grounds of detention and the material on which the grounds of detention are founded should be supplied to him and if the same is not done, then the detenu would not be able to exercise his right of making an effective representation. Therefore, infirmity in the translation that is provided to the detenu renders translation untrue and unfaithfully, his right to make representation enshrined under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India is impaired. In deciding the questions whether the detention order is rendered unsustainable on ground of incorrect translation the Court has to see whether on account of infirmity in translation the detenu's right to make representation has been prejudiced or frustrated. 14. This Court has observed in 2000(2) Mh.L.J. page 200 (supra) that 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)5, wherein in para 4 the Supreme Court has held that the principles of strict pleadings does not apply to the 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)6, 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. In the case before hand, in respect of the infirmities and omissions in respect of ground in Para 4(b)(iv), there is no specific pleading in the petition, even in the amended petition. But in view of the ratio laid down in above two decisions of the Apex Court, the Court can consider and examine the infirmity as well as inaccuracy in the translation as material necessary for its determination is available on record. 15. But in view of the ratio laid down in above two decisions of the Apex Court, the Court can consider and examine the infirmity as well as inaccuracy in the translation as material necessary for its determination is available on record. 15. It is in this perspective we are now examining infirmities highlighted in the grounds of detention contended in paragraphs 12 and 17 of the petition. We shall advert to omissions and incorrect translation in respect of grounds of detention contained in paragraph 4(b)(iv). We have already reproduced the Hindi version/translation of the same grounds. It is found that the words “your associate Siddhu Mayekar was found in possession of chopper, which were likely to be used in the commission of this offence”, came to be translated in Hindi as ^^vkidk lkFkhnkj fl/nq e;sdj ds iklls ,d pkWij cjken dh;k Fkk tks vkius bl xqukg ds yh;s bLrseky dh;k Fkk! The justification by respondent No. 2 in his reply about this incorrectness, does not stand to the reason. By no stretch of imagination, the words “ISTEMAL KIYA THA” can be construed as “were likely to be used”. It goes without saying that translation connotes that the detenu has used the weapon while committing the offence. While in the ground of detention, it is stated that it were likely to be used in connection of this offence. It is also very significant to note that in the translation it is attributed to the detenu, meaning thereby that the weapon was used by the detenu. As against that nothing has been stated in the grounds of detention attributing user of the weapon by the detenu. That apart it is seen that in Hindi translation the offence that was registered was referred as xq-j- 182/01 and it is stated that xq-j- dzekad 182@2001 esa Hkh vki vkSj vkids lkFkhnkjksa dk lgHkkx Fkk! In ground No. 4(b)(iv) the words: “your associates Batuk Kharwa and Siddhu Mayekar admitted having committed this offence alongwith your said associates”, however further Hindi translation is" ^^rgdhdkr ds njeh;ku vkids lkFkhnkj cVqd [kkjok vkSj fl/nq e;sdj us ;g xqukg geus dh;k Fkk ,slk crk;k! rgdhdkr ds nksjku fo-i-ekxZ iqyhl Fkkus ds xq-j- dzekad 182@2001 esa Hkh vki vkSj vkids lkFkhnkjksa dk lgHkkx Fkk! rgdhdkr ds nksjku fo-i-ekxZ iqyhl Fkkus ds xq-j- dzekad 182@2001 esa Hkh vki vkSj vkids lkFkhnkjksa dk lgHkkx Fkk! is totally incorrect showing involvement of the detenu in the offence alongwith his associates consequent upon an admission given by his associates during the course of investigation. It is seen that in original grounds of detention nothing has been stated about detenu's associates Batuk Kharwa and Siddharth Mayekar having admitted to have committed the offence alongwith the detenu. This shows that the translation is not only incorrect, is unfaithful also. This has caused material prejudice to the detenu. 16. However, the English version, in this ground the investigation revealed that “Your associates Batuk Kharwa and Siddhu Mayekar were also involved in V.P. Road Police Station C.R. No. 184/01”, it is clear that the inaccuracy or incorrectness is in respect of the particulars of the crime registered at the Police Station, as also involvement of the accused persons, commission of that offence. In Hindi translation detenu is included by the word “vki” (Aap) meaning thereby the offence was registered against the detenu and his associates. There is no justification nor there can be any justification for such inaccuracy and omission in translation. It goes without saying that the translation is neither faithful nor correct, it shows that there was no application of mind by the concerned authorities, in formulating the grounds of detention, as also, supplying copy-translation thereof to the detenu. This infirmity cannot be said to be inconsequential. This omission and infirmity has certainly misled the detenu and it has seriously affected his right to make effective representation. 17. Now coming to the omissions in paragraph 4(a)(v). It is found that the words “against you and your associates” are missing in Hind translation. In our opinion this omission is also of serious nature as the offence registered against the detenu, which form the basis for issuance of detention order shows that the offences have been committed by the detenu and his associates. However, that material fact is missing because of omission in the translation. Therefore, this can also be a cause for material prejudice being caused to the detenu which has seriously affected his right to make effective representation. 18. As regards the inconsistency contended about the registration of the offence against unknown persons, the reply given by the respondent No. 2 has clarified the position. Therefore, this can also be a cause for material prejudice being caused to the detenu which has seriously affected his right to make effective representation. 18. As regards the inconsistency contended about the registration of the offence against unknown persons, the reply given by the respondent No. 2 has clarified the position. It appears to be very plausible that when the complaint was lodged by Anil Survey on the basis of which offence was registered, the names of the assailants were not disclosed and therefore, the complaint was lodged against unknown persons, but later on when the statement of the victim was recorded, the names of the assailants-accused including the detenu came to be disclosed and that is why the offence has been registered against them. Therefore, there is no infirmity and as such no prejudice has been caused to the detenu on account of that. 19. We have considered omission in respect of ground No. 4(b)(ii). It is very clear that the words “against you and your associates” which appear in original grounds of detention in paragraph 4(b)(ii), are missing in Hindi translation. There is no justification given by respondent No. 2 about the said omission. On the other hand respondent No. 2 has in his reply vociferously denied that there was omission in that regard. In our opinion the said omission is again of serious nature and there is much substance in the grievance of the petition that it has caused prejudice to the detenu because of this omission. 20. Thus, in our conscious and thoughtful consideration the inaccuracy, discrepancies and omissions in Hindi translation of the grounds of detention supplied to the detenu are very serious rendering the translation incorrect as well as unfaithfully and it was sufficient to mislead the detenu and probably the consequence was that his right to make effective representation under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India must have been frustrated and impaired. So, as held by this Court in catena of decisions rendered by now including the decisions referred in earlier part of the judgment the order of detention, so also, continued detention of the detenu is illegal and it cannot sustain and therefore the same should be quashed and set aside. Therefore, we pass the following order: ORDER 21. So, as held by this Court in catena of decisions rendered by now including the decisions referred in earlier part of the judgment the order of detention, so also, continued detention of the detenu is illegal and it cannot sustain and therefore the same should be quashed and set aside. Therefore, we pass the following order: ORDER 21. We allow the writ petition, quash and set aside the impugned detention order dated 12-9-2001 and direct that detenu Jayesh @ Jayu Mahendra Master, shall be released forthwith unless wanted in some other case and make Rule absolute. Petition allowed. -----