JUDGMENT - D.G. DESHPANDE, J.:---Heard Counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the State. 2. Petitioner is the mother of the detenu. The detenu being Mohammed Etesham Haji Gulam Rasool Shaikh is detained under the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords, Bootleggers, Drug Offenders and Dangerous Persons Act, 1981 (No. LV of 1981) (Amendment-1996) (for short 'M.P.D.A. Act') The order of detention is dated 17-8-2001 and the grounds of detention are of the same date. The detention order is passed on 2 CRs. and 2 in-camera statements. 3. The detention is challenged on number of grounds. However, Mr. Tripathi urged grounds (B), (C), (E), (H) and (I). 4. In ground (B) the detenu has contended that the Detaining Authority has relied upon 96 documents comprising of 658 pages, out of which post mortem report, medical certificate, panchanama, death certificate, statement of various co-accused at page Nos. 73, 93, 181, 193, 197, 201, 203, 207, 233-235, 371-391, 405, 407, 429, 441, 497, 498, 505 and 605 are wholly and/or partly illegible. Therefore according to the detenu it amounts to non-compliance to the constitutional mandate and Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India. The detenu's right of making effective representation is therefore vitally affected. The compilation of document that was given to the detenu was shown to us by Mr. Tripathi. We verified each of the document mentioned above and found as below: Page Nos. Particulars Remarks 73 Panchanama Legible 181-191 Post-mortem Report 186 Partly legible 187 Cause of death Legible Hemorrhage and Partly legible shock due to multiple stabbed injuries due to cut throat 189-191 Statement accompanying Illegible. P.M. note. Not clearly legible 193 Address. Partly legible Name of deceased 197 Illegible 201 Legible 203 Illegible 207 It is Gazette notification only two line are Illegible 233 Legible 235 Statement Legible 371-379 Statement of Mohd. Shabir Legible 401-411 Statement of Mohd. Shabir Legible, but very in Esssssssnglish. difficult to read. Particularly page Nos. 412, 413, 415, 416, 419 and other pages upto 452. 498 Fully legible 505 Legible 605 Fully legible It will be clear from the aforesaid list that the pages at Serial Nos. 73, 187, 201, 207, 233, 235, 371-379, 498, 505 and 605 are legible. Pages 401-411 is the statement of detenu Mohd. Shabir in English. It is legible but difficult to read, particularly pages 412, 413, 415, 416 and 419 and other pages upto 425. 73, 187, 201, 207, 233, 235, 371-379, 498, 505 and 605 are legible. Pages 401-411 is the statement of detenu Mohd. Shabir in English. It is legible but difficult to read, particularly pages 412, 413, 415, 416 and 419 and other pages upto 425. 5. In this regard it was contended by the learned A.P.P. that major documents and most of the documents are legible and so far as statement of the detenu is concerned, it is both in Hindi as well as in English and if Hindi statement is fully legible, therefore, the detenu cannot make any grievance that the English translation of the said statement being illegible has resulted in violation of Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India. Learned A.P.P. also pointed out that there is a school leaving certificate of the detenu in which it is mentioned that Hindi is the medium through which the detenu has taken education. 6. In view of this fact it is clear that the detenu understands Hindi and that when a statement in Hindi particularly his own statement is fully legible and when most of the documents referred to in ground (B) are legible no grievance can be made that there is non-compliance to Article 22(5) of the Constitution or that there is any violation. 7. In this regard it was also pointed out by the learned A.P.P. that all these documents pertain to two CRs referred to in the detention order and the detenu has not anywhere averred as to how his right of making representation is affected or he was deprived of his right to make representation. No such ground is raised by the detenu and therefore merely because some or few out of 658 pages were illegible or partly legible the detention order could not be set aside for non-compliance of Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India. 8. As stated above, we have perused the documents referred in ground (B) and we also noted as to which documents are partly legible or illegible, it cannot therefore be said that the right of the detenu to make effective representation is anyway affected. Nor it can be said that there is violation of Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India. 9. The next ground that was raised by Mr. Nor it can be said that there is violation of Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India. 9. The next ground that was raised by Mr. Tripathi was that in the index of documents supplied to the detenu and copy of which is annexed to the petition as per Annexure 'C' there is a reference to statement of accused Salim Khan at Serial No. 48 and statement of accused Mohd. Shabir @ Sachin at Serial No. 50 (49 and 51 referring to English translation of the said statements) but according to Mr. Tripathi the statement of co-accused Mohd. Shabir @ Sachin so referred in the index was never supplied to the detenu but to the contrary at Serial Nos. 48 and 50 are surrender forms of the accused. Mr. Tripathi therefore contended that if the Detaining Authority has referred to and relied upon the statement of the co-accused then non supplying copies of those documents vitiates the detention order. 10. This contention also cannot be accepted because in the grounds of detention there is no reference to the statement of the co-accused Mohd. Salim Khan. From the affidavit of the detaining authority it is clear that there were no statements of accused Mohd. Salim Khan nor they were relied upon by the detaining authority and therefore question of supplying copies of those statements to the detenu does not arise. Obviously the mention therefore in the index is a mistake and instead of surrender forms the document is referred to as statement of accused Salim Khan. 11. When questioned in this regard, Mr. Tripathi tried to contend that the existence of the statement of the co-accused Mohd. Salim Khan must be presumed in the circumstances of the case because if co-accused Mohd. Salim Khan was arrested then the police must have recorded his statement. We cannot accept this submission. Even if the contention of the detenu is that the particular statement ought to be there then we must go by the record. The record does not show i.e. the grounds of detention does not show that statement of the co-accused Mohd. Salim Khan was ever recorded or was ever relied upon or referred to by the detaining authority. This contention is therefore liable to be rejected. 12. Next contention that was raised by Mr. Tripathi was ground (E). According to this ground detenu is studied upto the 7th Std. Salim Khan was ever recorded or was ever relied upon or referred to by the detaining authority. This contention is therefore liable to be rejected. 12. Next contention that was raised by Mr. Tripathi was ground (E). According to this ground detenu is studied upto the 7th Std. in English medium and he is not well version with Marathi and Hindi language but in the grounds of detention para 4(a)(v) five lines have been reproduced in Hindi and the translation thereof was not furnished in English and therefore the right of the detenu to make effective representation is affected. This ground is to be rejected outright because the school leaving certificate of the detenu shows that the detenu has taken education in Hindi medium or that Hindi was a compulsory language. 13. The next ground is ground (H). In this ground the detenu has contended that so far as C.R. No. 49/2001 is concerned his name is not reflected in the F.I.R. because F.I.R. refers to "Four unidentified person". The complainant has not given the description of the assailants nor the names and the complainant identified one Mohd. Ubad and that detenu was not identified in the parade. Therefore, according to Mr. Tripathi the detenu is not concerned with the said C.R. and this cannot be made a ground for detention. According to him the sponsoring authority misled the detaining authority about the detenu admitting his involvement in the said C.R. 14. The learned A.P.P. pointed out that admittedly in the F.I.R. the name of the accused or his description does not appear because the detenu was the brain behind the murder and this is clear from para 4(a)(1) last five lines which say "One week prior to this incident your said associates were meet at the counter of "Gulshan-E-Eran" hotel, situated opposite Royal Touch Shopping Centre along with you. At that time you pointed out deceased Shri Mohd. Sharif Abdul Gafoor Shaikh @ Sharif Tunda to your said associates and you told your said associates that, ^^vktdy 'kjhQ raqMkdks eky ikso eaxk vkSj mldks pjch vk;k] NksVk 'kdhy HkkbZ ls iaxk fy;k gSA lkys dks Vidkuk iMsxk** and accordingly you all carried out your plan." 15. At that time you pointed out deceased Shri Mohd. Sharif Abdul Gafoor Shaikh @ Sharif Tunda to your said associates and you told your said associates that, ^^vktdy 'kjhQ raqMkdks eky ikso eaxk vkSj mldks pjch vk;k] NksVk 'kdhy HkkbZ ls iaxk fy;k gSA lkys dks Vidkuk iMsxk** and accordingly you all carried out your plan." 15. The learned A.P.P. pointed out that in the grounds of detention in para 4(a)(iv) the involvement of the detenu in the aforesaid conspiracy and crime is clearly stated and therefore it cannot be said that because of absence of name of the detenu in the F.I.R. he is entitled to any benefit or that the Detaining Authority was misled by Sponsoring Authority. The objection of Mr. Tripathi in this regard is therefore to be rejected. 16. In ground (I) it has been contended by the detenu that a perusal of the allegations in the two CRs. vide C.R. No. 49/2001 and 50/2001 and the two in-camera statements, it cannot be said that public order was in any way disturbed or that public at large were affected by the said incident. Therefore, according to Mr. Tripathi provisions of section 3(1) of the M.P.D.A. Act could not have been invoked. The facts pertaining to C.R. No. 49/2001 and 50/2001 clearly indicate that Tunda was eliminated on 8-2-2001 in broad day light at 11.30 hours in his office Sana Enterprises and at that time Mohd. Ubed, Habib Ahmed, Mohd, Anwar Khan, Hashim Khan and Mohd. Shabir all the associates of the detenu kept a watch and assaulted him with choppers and it is in this background that C.R. No. 49/2001 was registered. Merely because while giving the description of the incident in para 4(a)(i) the words "that people in the locality ran halter scatter" are absent, it cannot be said that the incident has not affected the public order. An overall impact of the incident has to be taken into consideration. A businessman is killed in busy locality in his own office. The said Mohd. Sharif @ Tunda was estate agent doing business under name and style of Sana Enterprises at Pydhonie. The second C.R. in respect of fire incident that has taken place on a public street i.e. Motibai Street near Maratha Mandir and so far as two in-camera statements are concerned, they have directly resulted in affecting public order. The said Mohd. Sharif @ Tunda was estate agent doing business under name and style of Sana Enterprises at Pydhonie. The second C.R. in respect of fire incident that has taken place on a public street i.e. Motibai Street near Maratha Mandir and so far as two in-camera statements are concerned, they have directly resulted in affecting public order. It cannot therefore be said that activities of the detenu did not affect public order. The objection in this regard is also liable to be rejected. 17. Mr. Tripathi cited authorities in support of his contention about supplying vital documents so far as the statement of the co-accused is concerned, we are not considering those authorities because nothing is there to show that statements of the co-accused were recorded or that they were relied upon or referred to by the Detaining Authority. 18. For all these reasons we pass the following order: ORDER Petition is dismissed. Rule is discharged. Certified copy expedited. Petition dismissed. -----