JUDGMENT - TAHILRAMANI V.K. (Smt.), J.: - Through this writ petition, the petitioner-detenu Raja @ Raju Namdev Kharade, has impugned the order of detention dated 5-5-2003 passed by the respondent No. 1 Shri V.D. Mishra, Commissioner of Police, Solapur. By the said order, the petitioner has been detained under sub-section (1) of section 3 of Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords, Bootleggers, Drug offenders and Dangerous Persons Act, 1981 (hereinafter referred to as "MPDA Act" for the sake of brevity). The detention order dated 5-5-2003 alongwith the grounds of detention which are also dated 5-5-2003 was served on the detenu on 5-5-2003.

2. Perusal of the grounds of detention which are annexed at Exh. B to the petition, shows that the impugned order of detention is founded on one C.R. viz. C.R. No. 92/2003 registered under sections 307 and 504 of I.P.C. r.w. sections 3 and 25 of the Indian Arms Act and r.w. section 135 of the Bombay Police Act. The said complaint dated 26-3-2003 has been registered on the basis of the complaint of Gajendra Dattatraya Harale lodged at Faujdar Chawdi Police Station, Solapur. Besides C.R. No. 92/2003, the detention order is also based on two in-camera statements of two witnesses namely 'A' and 'B' which were recorded on 15-4-2003 and 16-4-2003 respectively.

3. We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties at length. Although, in this writ petition, a large number of grounds have been pleaded i.e. ground 6(A) to 6(L), the learned Counsel for the petitioner has pressed only two grounds. The first ground is that the detention order has been issued relying on three incidents i.e. C.R. No. 92/2003 and two in-camera statements, however, none of the three incidents affect public order. The ground that the incidents pertaining to the two in-camera witnesses do not affect public order, is raised in para 6(B) of the petition and in para 6(E), it is stated that the incident pertaining to C.R. No. 92/2003 does not affect public order.

4. Mr. Chitnis, the learned Counsel for the petitioner has contended that none of the three incidents on which reliance has been placed by the Detaining Authority to issue the order of detention affect public order and hence, the order of detention is vitiated on that ground. Shri Chitnis has further contended that all the three incidents are confined to individual persons and they are private crimes as distinct from public crime. He has further contended that none of the incidents in any way affect the even tempo of the life of the community nor do any of the incidents affect the peace and tranquillity of the people of that particular locality where the crime has been committed and hence none of the incidents affect public order. In support of this contention Mr. Chitnis has placed reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of (State of Uttar Pradesh v. Kamal Kishore Saini)1, reported in A.I.R. 1988 S.C. 206. In the said case, the Detaining Authority had relied on two incidents and issued the order of detention. In case of the first incident i.e. Crime Case No. 109/1985, the Supreme Court came to the conclusion that the said incident did not affect the public order whereas as far as the second case was concerned i.e. Crime Case No. 222/1985, the Supreme Court held that the public order was disturbed by the said incident. In respect of the first incident the Supreme Court in para No. 12 observed thus:-

"In the instant case, the criminal acts referred to in ground No. 1 are to the effect that on 4th June, 1985 at about 11 p.m. some persons informed the complainant that his brother has been shot by some persons and when complainant reached the spot he found his brother Vishnu Narain Awasthi lying in the pool of blood and he had already died. Crime Case No. 109/1985 under section 302 I.P.C. was registered at Ghazipur Police Station. This incident is confined to individual persons and it is private crime as distinct from public crime. It does

Click Here to Read the rest of this document