1999 (7) TMI 668

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... d on the petitioner-detenu on 11-11-1998. True copies of the detention order and the grounds of detention are annexed as Annexures A and B respectively to this writ petition. The prejudicial activities on which the impugned detention order is founded are contained in the grounds of detention. Their perusal shows that the impugned detention order is founded on two C.Rs. and two in camera statements, of witnesses A and B. Two C.Rs. are detailed as Grounds 4(a-ii) and 4(b-i) in the grounds of detention. C.R. detailed in Ground 4(a-ii) namely C.R. No. 223 of 1998 arises out of a complaint dated 18-6-1998 lodged by Mohammed Asmat Khan at Police Station Chembur on the basis of which a case under section 307, 114 I.P.C. r/w sections 3, 25 an .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... illegible vital documents which were furnished to him and hampered his right to make an effective representation. 4. During the course of his submission, Mr. Tripathi pointed out that the vital document of which, an illegible copy was furnished to the petitioner-detenu is the document which has been annexed by him as Exhibit F to the petition. The said document is a panchanama dated 19-6-1998 and bears connection with Ground 4(b-i). On examining Exhibit F, we did find that a part of a page of it is illegible. When we confronted Mr. Rajiv Patil, learned Counsel for the respondents with the said fact, he showed us the original file wherein the petitioner-detenu has acknowledged the receipt of copy of the said panchanama on 11-11-1998. .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... e of his submissions, Mr. Tripathi invited our attention to two documents which are filed as Annexures G and H respectively to the writ petition. It is true that in Annexure G, there is a part in Hindi and the said part has not been translated in English and given to the detenu. When we pointed this out to Mr. Rajiv Patil, learned Counsel for the respondents, he showed us the original file. He invited our attention to the document at page 159 of the original file namely the arrest memo of the petitioner-detenu. Mr. Patil invited our attention to a column in the said memo wherein the detenu admitted that he understood Hindi, English and Urdu. Mr. Patil pointed out that the said memo was signed by the petitioner-detenu. In Mr. Patil's .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X