SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

2008 Supreme(Bom) 1070

2008 ALL MR (Cri) 2497
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BILAL NAZKI & A.A. KUMBHAKONI, JJ.
Shri. Abdul Rehman Abdul Wahid - Appellant
Vs.
Shri. D.N. Jadhav & Ors, - Respondents
Criminal Writ Petition No.298 of 2008
Decided On: 29th July, 2008.

Advocates appeared
Mr. U.N. TRIPATHI, for the Petitioner.
Mr. D.S. MHAISPURKAR, APP, for the State.

Non-supply of legible documents, including remand applications and medico-legal certificates, violated the detenu's right to make an effective representation under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India, leading to the quashing of the detention order.

Headnote:

Habeas Corpus - Detention under Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords, Bootleggers, Drug Offenders and Dangerous Persons Act, 1981 - Section 3(1)

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner filed a habeas corpus petition challenging the validity of the detention order issued under section 3(1) of the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords, Bootleggers, Drug Offenders and Dangerous Persons Act, 1981. The detention was based on incidents involving the detenu and his associates, including an alleged armed dacoity plan and an assault and robbery incident.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the detention order was unsustainable due to non-supply of legible copies of documents, including remand applications and medico-legal certificates, which hampered the detenu's right to make an effective representation under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India.

Issues: The issues included the validity of the detention order based on the sufficiency of the material provided to the detaining authority, the impact of non-supply of legible documents on the detenu's right to make an effective representation, and the relevance of the incidents cited in the detention order.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that non-supply of legible documents, including remand applications and medico-legal certificates, amounted to a violation of the detenu's right to make an effective representation under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India, and thus quashed and set aside the detention order.

Final Decision: The impugned detention order was quashed and set aside, and the petitioner/detenu was ordered to be released forthwith unless wanted in connection with some other case.

A.A. KUMBHAKONI, J.:-

This is a habeas corpus petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by a detenu who is presently detained at Central Prison Thane. This petition questions validity of order of detention being D.O. No.123/PCB/DP/Zone-II/2007 dated 23rd October, 2007 (hereinafter referred to as "the impugned order" for the sake of brevity), issued under section 3(1) of the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords, Bootleggers, Drug Offenders and Dangerous Persons Act, 1981 (hereinafter referred to as "the said Act" for the sake of brevity), passed against the detenu by the Commissioner of Police, Brihan Mumbai.

2. On 7th September, 2007 Senior Inspector of Police of Pydhonie Police Station, Mumbai submitted a proposal for detention of the detenu under the said Act. The detaining authorities considered and scrutinized the material placed before it and upon its subjective satisfaction that the activities of the detenu were prejudicial to the maintenance of the public order and that the detenu was dangerous person within the meaning of the said Act and further that it was necessary to detain the detenu under the said Act with a view to prevent him from acting in any manner, prejudicial to the maintenance of public order, has issued the impugned order dated 23rd October, 2007. The impugned order has been served on the detenu on 8th December, 2007. The State Government was pleased to issue an order communicating the approval of the impugned order, on 26th October, 2007 and was further pleased to confirm the impugned order on 25th January, 2008.

3. The impugned order has been issued by the Detaining Authority, on the basis of material placed before it, which pertained to in camera restatements of two witnesses dated 26th August and 28th August, 2007 as also following two C.R.S -

(i) C.R. No.107 of 2007 registered at Colaba Police Station against the detenu and his associates, under section 399 of L.P.C., read with section 3, 25, 27 of Arms Act, read with section 37(1) of the Bombay Police Act.

(ii) C.R. No. 14312007 registered with Pydhonie Police Station against the detenu and his associates under section 394 read with section 34 of Indian Penal Code.

4. Instead of collectively setting out herein the arguments advanced on behalf of the petitioner and replied by the respondents, we will prefer to deal with the same point wise as set out hereunder.

5. In as much as C.R. No.143 of 200 7 aforesaid is concerned, though the FIR in that regard has been registered on 24th July, 2007, the incident involved therein rein occurred on 17th July, 2007. It is the case of the complainant therein that due to the fear of retaliation at the hands of the detenu and his associates, the complainant did not report the matter to the police. According to the complainant therein, a news paper dated 23rd July, 2007 carried the news of the fact that the detenu and his associates were arrested by Colaba Police Station, in relation to an incident that occurred on 25th July, 2007. After the fact of arrest of the detenu became known to the complainant therein, the complainant mustered the courage and decided to lodge the complaint in relation to the incident that occurred on 17th July, 2007. Accordingly, the complaint has been registered on 24th July, 2007 as C.R. No.143 of 2007.

6. The narration of incident by the complainant who has filed the aforesaid complaint dated 24th July, 2007 in short as is set out in the impugned order itself, which is relevant for our purpose is as under-

The complainant has a godown-cum office at Pydhonie. On 17th July, 2007 a motor tempo bearing registration No.MH-04 C 0231 had come to the godown of the Complainant from Kurla with iron pipes which were required for the purpose of the business of the complainant. The complainant with the help of his workers was unloading these iron pipes from the motor tempo in his godown. At 20.00 Hrs., when the motor tempo was about to be driven back to Kurla, it was









































































Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top