JUDGMENT - BATTA R.K., J.:---The petitioner was ordered to be detained under the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords, Bootleggers, Drug Offenders and Dangerous Persons Act, 1981 vide order dated 4-3-2003 of Commissioner of Police, Amravati issued in exercise of powers conferred under sub-section (1) of section 3 of the said Act. This order was confirmed by the State Government on 10-4-2003. The petitioner challenge his detention in this petition on several grounds. 2.We have heard Mr. J.B. Kasat, Advocate for the petitioner and Mr. Gavai, the learned Public Prosecutor on behalf of the State. The Commissioner of Police, Amravati is present as directed vide Farad Order dated 20-8-2003. 3.Though several grounds have been taken by the petitioner, the petitioner is going to succeed only on the ground of non-furnishing of translation of various documents in the language known to the petitioner. The said documents are at page Nos. 15 to 20, 72, 73, 82 and 95 which are medico-legal certificates. The petitioner alleges that translations of the same were not furnished to him. The petitioner also alleges that copies of translations of documents at Sr. Nos. 62 and 63 which are bail orders and the translation of document at page No. 83 which is remand paper was also not furnished in the language known to the petitioner. The petitioner also alleges that translation of documents at page No. 103, which is a newspaper cutting of the daily "HITAVADA", was also not furnished to him his mother tongue. 4.In respect of these allegations, reply filed by the Detaining Authority is at page 8 of the affidavit filed by the Commissioner of Police. In this paragraph, it is stated that the documents at page Nos. 15 to 20, 72, 73, 82 and 95 are medico-legal certificates which cannot be translated; documents at Serial Nos. 62 and 63 are bail orders passed by the High Court in favour of the detenue of which the detenue is fully aware and as such, there is no need to translate the same; document at page 83 is remand paper of which the petitioner is well aware and as such, it does not require any translation and the document at page No. 103 is a newspaper cutting of daily "HITAVADA" and this translation was not furnished to the petitioner in his mother tongue because it was not necessary to supply translation thereof to the petitioner. 5.The stand taken by the Commissioner of Police, Amravati is contrary to the observations made by the Division Bench of this Court, to which both of us are parties, in (Vijay Damaji Gaidhane v. State of Maharashtra and another)1, 2001(Supp. 2) Bom.C.R. (N.B.)289 and (Smt. Kamlabai Kalicharan Yadav v. State of Maharashtra and another)2, 2001(5) Bom.C.R. (N.B.)352 . In Vijay Damaji Gaidhane v. State of Maharashtra (supra), the question which arose for consideration was relating to furnishing of translations in the language known to the detenue of the report of Forensic Science Laboratory, post-mortem report and application under section 162 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The said documents had been furnished to the petitioner in English language and no Marathi translation had been furnished. The stand taken by respondent No. 2 Detaining Authority was that these documents are medico-legal and judicial documents and these documents cannot be translated in any other language as it may change the very meaning of the text and moreover, as per the Evidence Act, these documents are considered expert documents and expert documents, if translated, should be translated by experts only. The material on record in the said petition indicated that the petitioner was supplied with English as well as Marathi grounds of the detention order as well as documents consisting of 1 to 65 pages and all of them had been explained to him in Marathi by the Officer in the Nagpur Central Prison. Therefore, it was held that if these documents could be explained by the Officer serving the grounds of detention, then the plea taken by respondent No. 2 that the documents cannot be furnished in Marathi as it may change the very meaning thereof could not be accepted. It was also found that there was contradiction in terms in the stand taken by the State viz. whereas the documents were explained orally in Marathi by the Officers serving the grounds of detention, yet the Detaining Authority respondent No. 2 stated that these documents cannot not be translated in any other language as it may change the very meaning of the text. It is now well settled that the grounds of detention and documents in support of detention order should be served on the petitioner in the language known to the detenue and it is not necessary to quote any rulings on this issue. It is now well settled that the grounds of detention and documents in support of detention order should be served on the petitioner in the language known to the detenue and it is not necessary to quote any rulings on this issue. 6.The matter again came up for consideration before this Court in Smt. Kamlabai Kalicharan Yadav v. State of Maharashtra (supra) and the observations in respect of this aspect are found in para 7, which reads as under: "The next ground on which the detention is challenged is that the transaction of some of the documents in mother tongue of the detenue was not furnished. In this respect the contention of the detenue is that the documents at page 5 medicolegal certificate, pages 31-36 post-mortem report, at pages 53-58 on Form B and at page 91 the report of the Chemical Analyser and page 101 order of extention of police custody remand are in English and translated copies of the same in mother tongue of the detenue which are material, have not been furnished. Law in this respect is well settled that the copy of the detention order as well as documents in support thereof should be furnished to the detenue in his mother tongue. Admittedly, in the case under consideration copies of the some of the documents which we have already referred above were not furnished to the detenue in his mother tongue. In the return filed by the respondent No. 2 it has been stated that the said documents are medicolegal certificate, post-mortem report, C.A. report which are considered as expert documents and if they are translated the very termilogy could change. This so called explanation, which is otherwise not acceptable, does not wipe out the duty enjoined under law on the Detaining Authority to furnish translation in the language known by the detenue. Though, the learned Advocate for the petitioner quoted a number of authorities on this issue yet in view of the settled position of law, it is not necessary to refer to the same. Though, the learned Advocate for the petitioner quoted a number of authorities on this issue yet in view of the settled position of law, it is not necessary to refer to the same. The non-furnishing of the translations of the said documents in the language known by the detenue affects the fundamental right of the detenue to make effective representation under Article 22(5) of the Constitution and on this count also the detention order is vitiated." 7.Inspite of the fact that the stand taken by the State had not been accepted twice in the two rulings quoted above, the same stand is again taken in the year 2003. In view of the above, the stand taken by respondent No. 2 in para No. 8 of the affidavit in reply cannot be accepted. It appears that the judgments of this Court have not percolated at the level at which they are required to be considered for implementation. The Commissioner of Police, Amravati stated that he was not aware of the judgments referred to above. It is, therefore, desirable that the office of the Public Prosecutor and the State Government should take proper and adequate steps so that the judgments of this Court reach the authorities implementing various provisions so that the cases do not go on failing again and again on account of the same lapses committed by the police. It is pertinent to note that earlier the externment order passed against the petitioner had also failed on account of lapses on the part of the police and the detention order again fails for the same reason. The petitioner against whom there are 40 criminal cases is reaping the benefits of lapses on the part of the police. We expect that such lapses shall not occur in future and it shall be ensured that the cases are properly examined and scrutinized from all legal angles including procedure etc. in the light of the law laid down by this Court and the Apex Court before the orders are issued by the Competent Authority. 8.Since the translations of the relevant documents referred to above were not furnished to the detenue in the language known by him, the petitioner succeeds inasmuch as non-supply of translations in the language known to the detenue has adversely affected his right of making effective representation under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India. 8.Since the translations of the relevant documents referred to above were not furnished to the detenue in the language known by him, the petitioner succeeds inasmuch as non-supply of translations in the language known to the detenue has adversely affected his right of making effective representation under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India. 9.In the result, the detention order is accordingly quashed and the petition is allowed in the aforesaid terms. The petitioner shall, therefore, be released in case he is not required in any other case. Rule is accordingly made absolute. Petition allowed. -----