2005 Supreme(Bom) 955

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
Magarpansingh Pimple
Versus
State of Maharashtra
Decided on : JULY 27, 2005

Headnote:Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords, Bootleggers, Drug Offenders and Dangerous Persons Act (55 of 1981) - Detention of bootlegger - Merely because the report of Chemical Analyst does not record sample material to be dangerous to public health may not allow escape to the petitioner. - Even the apprehension of the activities affecting adversely the maintenance of public order, is sufficient for the Detaining Authority to order preventive detention of the petitioner. In view of liberal wording in Clause (ii) of Section 2(a) of the Act, it can be debated, whether the proof that intoxicant material found with the petitioner is dangerous to health of public, is really necessary. After all, the petitioner is not selling his illicit liquor with ISI mark. It is unauthorised and illegal production having no control over its quality, having no checks that it is not injurious for human consumption. The Courts cannot give deaf ears to the frequency of reports regarding mass fatalities, as a result of consumption of illicit liquor. The report of Chemical Analyst does not record the sample material to be dangerous to public health, therefore, may not allow the escape to the petitioner, especially in the light of clause, "..... or likely to affect adversely......." 1986. Cri LJ 1421 - Referred.

       Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords, Bootleggers, Drug Offenders and Dangerous Persons Act (55 of 1981) - Section 3(1) - Detention of petitioner - When statements were recorded, the incidents were one or two months old - Delay in passing the order neither unreasonable nor inordinate - Order s not vitiated. - In-camera statements are recorded on 13th and 14th February, 2005 and the detaining authority passed the order on 24.2.2005 and after having gone through the stage of report from the Advisory Board and consideration of representation of petitioner-detenu, the same is confirmed by the State on 25.4.2005. When the statements are recorded on 13th and 14th February, 2005, the incidents were one or two months old. Therefore, in this matter, the delay is neither unreasonable nor inordinate and there appears no necessity to explain the same. Delay is not of such a magnitude that the same can vitiate the detention order itself. 2000 All MR (Cri) 1070 (SC); AIR 1994 SC 656 - Referred; 2001 All MR (Cri) 1616 - Distinguished ; 2002 (9) SCC 714 - Relied on.

       Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords, Bootleggers, Drug Offenders and Dangerous Persons Act (55 of 1981) - Section 3(1) - Detention of petitioner bootlegger - Subjective satisfaction of detaining authority - Cannot be subjected to challenge as if the matter is considered by the appellate Court. - The orders of preventive detention can be challenged only on the ground of nonobservance of formalities on the part of detaining authority. The formalities such as not observing the time schedule prescribed by the statute, breach of principles of natural justice by denial of sufficient opportunity to represent etc., the Courts do not seem to be empowered to penetrate to the depth of the detention order and to arrive at a conclusion that the detaining authority ought not to have been subjectively satisfied about necessity of detention of the petitioner for the purpose in the statute for preventive detention. The State has brought enough material to establish that petitioner is indulging into bootlegging activities and the activities seem to have been continued over a period of about atleast 5 years. He is, therefore, a person, who fulfils the definition of a bootlegger as contained in Section 2(b) of MPDA Act. Consequently, the judgment of the authority that he is required to be dealt under special legislation cannot be faulted with and even the subjective satisfaction as recorded by the detaining authority cannot be subjected to challenge as if the matter is being considered by the appellate Court. AIR 1982 SC 8; 2001 (2) Mh LJ 4374 - Relied on.

       Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords, Bootleggers, Drug Offenders and Dangerous Persons Act (55 of 1981) - Section 3(1) - Detention order - Period of detention not mentioned by detaining order - Order not vitiated. 1990 Cr LJ 1140 and AIR 1992 SC 979 - Relied on.

       Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords, Bootleggers, Drug Offenders and Dangerous Persons Act (55 of 1981) - Sections 3(1) and 2(a)(ii) - Petitioner detenu was indulging in bootlegging activities for considerably long period - Courts will be justified in presuming that he is bound to keep the inhabitants surrounding his business activities under threat. - State has not come only with the statements of threats accorded by the petitioner to witnesses, but the record of recent raids the registration of crimes under the Bombay Prohibition Act against the petitioner provide a foundation for presumption that the statements by the deponents are true. If a person is indulging into bootlegging activities for considerably long period and Courts will be justified in presuming that the person is bound to keep the inhabitants surrounding his business activities under the threat so that his bootlegging activities should continue unobstructed and without complaints from the inhabitants of the locality. To draw such a presumption, there is enough material and if a person continues his bootlegging activities in the society, can it be said that the life of the inhabitants in the surrounding area will remain the same, unaffected, peaceful and without any disturbance? The answer is bound to be in the negative. The peace of the locality is likely to be disturbed not only by consumer/ customer of the bootlegger, but also by occasions of raids by Police and the activities those may proceed for the purpose of prosecution. Sponsoring agency had presented sufficient material regarding bootlegging activities of the petitioner as also his activities which were either prejudicial or likely to be prejudicial to maintenance of public order. Otherwise also, there is very limited scope to interfere with the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority or to find fault with the same. The writ petition, therefore, deserves to be and is accordingly dismissed. AIR 1982 SC 8 - Relied on.