Judgment

JUDGMENT - Special leave granted.

2. This appeal is preferred by the appellant, Pradeep Nilkanth Paturkar, who is the brother of the detenu, Raju Nilkanth Paturkar, alias Paturkar assailing the correctness of the judgment of the High Court of Bombay rendered in Criminal Writ Petition No. 1093 of 1991 dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellant challenging the validity and legality of the order of detention passed against his brother, the detenu herein.

3. The first respondent, viz, the Commissioner of Police, Greater Bombay in exercise of powers conferred by sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords, Bootleggers and Drug Offenders Act, 1981 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) read with Govt. Order Home Department (Special) No. DDS /1391/ l / SPL-3 (B) dated 26th July 1981 passed the impugned order of detention and directed the detenu to be detained in the Nasik Road Central Prison, Nasik.

4. The detaining authority after reaching his subjective satisfaction on the materials placed before him by the sponsoring authority has passed the order of detention in question on the basis of five cases registered against the detenu for manufacturing and selling illicit liquor and also on the basis of the statements given by witnesses A to E. The five criminal cases registered under the provisions of Bombay Prohibition Act of 1949 relate to the occurrences dated 2-10-90, 11-11-90, 22-11-90, 5-1-91 and 26-2-91. Of the witnesses, witnesses Nos. A and B examined on 26-3-91 speak of the incidents dated 2-10-90 and 27-2-91 respectively. Witnesses Nos. C and D examined on 27-3-91 speak of the incidents dated 4-10-90 and 23-1-91. Witness No. E/lc his statement dated 20-3-91 speaks of an incident dated 16-2-91. It transpires from the grounds of detention that in all the criminal cases registered against the detenu under the provisions of the Bombay Prohibition Act, the detenu has been released on bail on the very same day of his arrest or the registration of the cases.

5. The sponsoring authority after collecting all the materials submitted his proposal on 4-4-91 along with the list of documents and the same was accepted by the detaining authority on 25-7-91 and thereafter the impugned order of detention dated 6-8-91 was passed in pursuance of which the detenu was secured and detained.

6. Mr. Gupta. the learned counsel for the appellant though has raised a number of contentions in the appeal memorandum has pressed only one contention before us, viz. that there was an undue and unreasonable delay in passing the order by the detaining authority and that the delay which stands unexplained vitiates the impugned order.

7. Admittedly, of the five criminal cases three are of the year 1990 and the remaining two are dated 5-1-91 and 26-2-91. In respect of the five incidents referred to in the grounds of detention, as mentioned above witnesses A to E have been examined in the later part of March 1991 that is long after the detenu has been released on bail in all the five criminal cases.

8. The question for our consideration is as to whether the delay in passing the detention order has vitiated the said order. The High Court before which a similar contention has been raised has negatived that contention observing thus:

"The period of four months required by the authorities to pass the order can by no stretch of imagination be tested as unduly long. Though the statements were available in March 1991, the procedure required some time before the powers are exercised. In our judgment, the order of detention does not suffer from the vice of delay."

9. According to Mr. Gupte, the explanation given by the High Court for the delay that the "procedure required sometime before the powers are exercised" is not the explanation offered by the detaining authority and therefore that explanation should not be accepted to the prejudice of the right of the detenu. In support of his submission that the unexplained