1 wp.3258.10 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.3258 OF 2010 Shri Pramod Laxman Talbhandare, Age 43 years, resident of Vijapur Naka Zopadpatti No.1, Solapur (At present at Yerwada Central Prison at Pune) ...Petitioner Versus 1. The Commissioner of Police, Solapur. 2. The State of Maharashtra, (through the Secretary to the Government of Maharashtra, Home Department (Spl.), Mantralaya, Mumbai. ...Respondents ...... Mr.U.N.Tripathi for Petitioner. Mr.A.S.Gadkari, A.P.P. for Respondents. ...... CORAM:- A.M.KHANWILKAR AND A.P.BHANGALE, JJ. DATED:- DECEMBER 21, 2010. JUDGMENT (Per A.M.Khanwilkar, J. ): 1. This Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India takes exception to the order passed by the Commissioner of Police, Solapur dated 27th October, 2000 in exercise of powers under 2 wp.3258.10 Section 3(1) of the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords, Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Dangerous Persons and Video Pirates Act, 1981 whereunder the Petitioner was detained and has been lodged in Yerwada Central Prison, Pune. For the ground on which we are inclined to allow this Petition, it is not necessary to advert to the factual matrix on the basis of which the Detaining Authority found it necessary to issue detention order against the Petitioner. As aforesaid, the detention order was passed on 27th October, 2010 by the Commissioner of Police, Solapur. The Petitioner was arrested pursuant to the said detention order on the same day and is presently lodged in jail. The principal ground on which we are inclined to quash the detention order is the grievance of the Petitioner that the original compilation of material which was served on the Petitioner along with the grounds of detention while he was arrested on 27th October, 2010 which consisted of 326 pages out of that, 34 pages were illegible. In fact, portion of some of the pages is not readable at all. In support of this contention stated in the Petition, the Petitioner is relying on the original copy of the compilation served on him along with the grounds of detention. 3 wp.3258.10 2. The Respondents have countered the said contention of the Petitioner by asserting that most of the documents to which reference is made by the Petitioner being illegible out of the compilation served on him can be termed as faintly printed/photocopy document but certainly not illegible documents. It is further asserted that the said documents were not relevant. Further, it is also accepted by the Respondents that the said documents were part of the compilation and were placed before the Detaining Authority who recorded his subjective satisfaction on the basis of the said material as a whole. 3. To consider the grievance of the Petitioner that about 34 pages of the compilation were illegible; we personally waded through the compilation served on the Petitioner and were in agreement with the grievance of the Petitioner. However, to reassure ourselves we called upon learned A.P.P. appearing for the Respondents to give his opinion as Officer of Court whether the documents such as at Pages 81, 203, 247, 245 and 246 in particular amongst the 34 pages referred to by the Petitioner can be said to be 4 wp.3258.10 legible copies. In all fairness, he accepted that the same were not legible. We then called upon the learned A.P.P. to ask the Police Official who is present in court to instruct the learned A.P.P. to himself read the documents in question. He was asked to read pages 81, 203 and 247 of the compilation. Most of the time, he could not read the relevant words at all and was finding it difficult to read the remaining words which are stated to be faintly printed being the Photostat copy. Thus, even the Police Official himself is not able to read the documents referred to above fluently. In addition to the three pages which the Police Official was made to read in Court, we also noticed that Pages 245 and 246 are totally faint and illegible. If such material is supplied to the detenue while he is arrested, we have no hesitation in taking the view that his right guaranteed under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India is abridged. We are fortified in taking this view on the basis of exposition in the case of Khudiram Das vs. The State of West Bengal & Ors. reported in (1975) 2 SCC 81, in particular, Paragraphs 5 and 6 wherein this very question came up for consideration before the Court. The Apex Court has opined that the Detaining Authority is not only expected to serve the grounds of detention to the detenue but also 5 wp.3258.10 the materials on the basis of which such grounds have been formulated by the Detaining Authority. In addition, Counsel for the Petitioner has rightly invited our attention to another decision of the Apex Court in the case of Manjit Singh Grewal alias Gogi vs. Union of India & Ors. reported in 1990 (Supp) SCC 59, which is directly on the point. Even in that case, the copies of the documents were supplied but the same were not legible. The Court rejected the argument that no prejudice was caused to the detenue due to such illegible document because the said documents were irrelevant. The Court frowned upon service of such illegible copies on the detenue. 4. Applying the principle underlying the aforesaid two decisions, as aforesaid, we have no hesitation in quashing the impugned detention order dated 27th October, 2010 bearing D.O. No.05/CB/DP/2010 passed by the Commissioner of Police, Solapur in exercise of powers under Section 3 of the Act of 1991. 5. Accordingly, we allow this Writ Petition and make the rule absolute in terms of prayer clause (b) and further direct that the 6 wp.3258.10 Petitioner shall be released forthwith, unless required in connection with any other criminal case. Prayer clause (b) reads as follows: “(b) that the order of detention bearing No.05/CB/DP/2010 dated 27/10/2010 issued by the Commissioner of Police, Solapur be quashed and set aside and on quashing the said order of the detention the Petitioner be released forthwith.” A.P.BHANGALE, J. A.M.KHANWILKAR, J.