Back
2001 Supreme(Bom) 1131
IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
Vishnu Sahai S.K. Shah, JJ.
Pyarelal @ Pyare Ambika Singh .... Petitioner.
Versus
M.N. Singh, Commissioner of Police others.... Respondents.
Criminal Writ Petition No. 1312 of 2001, decided on 13-12-2001.
Advocates appeared :
U.N. Tripathi, for petitioner.
D.S. Mhaispurkar, A.P.P., for respondents.
The genuineness of the subjective satisfaction of the Detaining Authority and the reasonableness of the delay in execution of a detention order are crucial factors in determining the validity of the detention under the M.P.D.A. Act.
Headnote:
Detention Order - Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords, Bootleggers, Drug Offenders and Dangerous Persons Act, 1981 - Section 399, 325 of the Arms Act, section 37(1)(a) of the Bombay Police Act, sections 324, 34, 323, 506(2), 114 of the Indian Penal Code - Summary of Acts and Sections: The court discussed the grounds of detention under various sections of the Arms Act, Bombay Police Act, and Indian Penal Code, highlighting the offense of extortion disclosed in the in-camera statements of witnesses A and B. The court also examined the delay in the execution of the detention order and the reasons provided by the Detaining and Sponsoring Authorities for not resorting to certain actions under the M.P.D.A. Act.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner-detenu challenged the detention order issued under the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords, Bootleggers, Drug Offenders and Dangerous Persons Act, 1981. The detention was based on multiple criminal cases and in-camera statements disclosing the offense of extortion. The petitioner alleged delay in the execution of the detention order and failure to take certain actions under the M.P.D.A. Act.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the delay in execution of the detention order and the failure to take certain actions under the M.P.D.A. Act did not vitiate the detention order. The court also concluded that the Detaining and Sponsoring Authorities provided plausible explanations for the delay in execution.
Issues: The issues involved the delay in execution of the detention order, failure to take certain actions under the M.P.D.A. Act, and the genuineness of the subjective satisfaction of the Detaining Authority.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the failure to take certain actions under the M.P.D.A. Act and the delay in execution did not vitiate the detention order, as the authorities provided reasonable explanations for the delay. The court also emphasized that the genuineness of the subjective satisfaction of the Detaining Authority was not affected.
Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed, and the rule was discharged.
The detention order along with the grounds of detention which are also dated 19-2-2001, was served on the petitioner-detenu on 22-5-2001, and their true copies are annexed as Exhibits A and B respectively to this writ petition.
2. A perusal of the grounds of detention (Exhibit B) would show that the impugned order is founded on 3 C.Rs. namely :- C.Rs. No. 660 of 2000 under section 399 read with section 325 of the Arms Act, read with section 37(1)(a) of the Bombay Police Act, registered on the basis of complaint dated 26-6-2000 lodged by D.C.B. Unit No. 7, C.I.D. Bombay; C.R. No. 313 of 2000 under sections 324, 34 I.P.C. registered on the basis of a complaint dated 9-6-2000 lodged by Mangaldas Pandurang Jagtap at D.N. Nagar Police Station and C.R. No. 34 of 2000 under sections 323, 506(2) 114 I.P.C. registered on the basis of a complaint dated 26-6-2000 lodged by Mohammed Syed at D.N. Nagar Police Station and in camera statements of two witnesses namely A and B which were recorded on 20-9-2000.
A perusal of the in-camera statement of witnesses A and B would show that the offence of extortion has been disclosed in them.
3. A perusal of para 5 of the grounds of detention would show that the petitioner-detenu has been detained as a dangerous person under section 2(b-1) of the M.P.D.A. Act.
4. We have heard learned Counsel for the parties. Although in this writ petition, Mr. U.N. Tripathi, learned Counsel for the petitioner has pleaded a large number of grounds numbered from Ground Nos. 7(A) to 7(H) but, he has only pressed before us two grounds namely Ground Nos. 7(B) and 7(H) of the said grounds. There is a common plea in them namely there was a delay in the execution of the impugned detention order.
The pleadings therein in short are as under :-
Although the impugned detention order was issued on 19-2-2001, it was executed and served upon the petitioner detenu on 22-5-2001 i.e. after a gap of more than three months despite the fact he was always available at his Bombay address.
It has also been averred therein that the most effective steps enjoined by law like moving for cancellation of petitioner-detenu's bail in the said C.Rs. and taking action against him under section 7 of the M.P.D.A. Act were not resorted to and consequently the impugned detention order is vitiated in law.
5. Ground Nos. 7(B) and 7(H) have been replied to in three returns namely in para 9 of the return of the Detaining Authority, para 9 of the return of P.S.I., Suresh Bhogle (Sponsoring Authority) dated 8-11-2001 and paras 2 to 4 of the second return of P.S.I. Suresh Bhogle dated 7-12-2001.
It is pertinent to mention that the second return of P.S.I. Bhogle was necessitated because, Ground No. 7(H) has been incorporated by learned Counsel for the petitioner pursuant to leave to amend being granted by this Court vide order dated 8-11-2001.
6. We now propose setting forth the averments contained in the aforesaid returns.
We begin with the averments contained in para 9 of the return of the detaining which in short are as under :-
The detention order dated 19-2-2001 was forwarded to the Sponsoring Authority for execution on 20-2-2001. Since the detenu had jumped bail in C.R. No. 313 of 2000, and a non bailable warrant of arrest had been issued against him by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 44th Court, Andheri, Bombay on 12-1-2001, no application for cancellation of bail was preferred. It was also not preferred because, the grounds for cancellation
