Back
2013 Supreme(Bom) 714
In the High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad
NARESH H. PATIL & A.V. NIRGUDE, JJ.
Santosh S/o Bhagwan Patil
Versus
The State of Maharashtra, Through its Principal Secretary, Home Department (Special) & Others
Criminal Writ Petition No. 1081 of 2012
Decided on : 26-03-2013
For the Petitioner:V.D. Sapkal, Advocate.
For the Respondents: R1 to R4, Smt. A.V. Gondhalekar, Additional Public Prosecutor.
Headnote:Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords, Bootleggers, Drug-offenders, Dangerous Persons and Video Pirates Act, 1981 - Section 3 - Order of Preventive detention.
Non-production of material by Detaining Authority in respect of earlier cases lodged against detenue, not retied order of detention.
Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords, Bootleggers, Drug-offenders, Dangerous Persons and Video Pirates Act, 1981 - Section 3 - Order of Preventive detention.
Order of detention passed by Detaining Authority, on basis of material in form of record of Criminal Cases and Confidential Statement of witnesses is valid.
Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords, Bootleggers, Drug-offenders, Dangerous Persons and Video Pirates Act, 1981 - Section 3 - Validity of order of Preventive detention.
Since detenue is aware of Marathi language hence some typographical errors occurring in English translation of detention order, cannot vitiate Order of detention.
Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords, Bootleggers, Drug-offenders, Dangerous Persons and Video Pirates Act, 1981 - Section 3 - Validity of order of preventive detention.
Where Sponsoring Authority after verifying truthfulness of incident narrated by witnesses, had put necessary endorsement therefore order of detention not vitiated on ground this such verification was defective.
Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords, Bootleggers, Drug-offenders, Dangerous Persons and Video Pirates Act, 1981 - Section 3 - Constitution of India, Article 22(5) - Effective representation against order of detention.
Where an opportunity was provided to detenu, to make representation on basis of material supplied to him therefore mandate of Article 22(5) complied with while passing order of detention.
Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords, Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Dangerous Offenders, Dangerous Persons and Video Pirates Act, 1981 - Section 3 - Constitution of India, Article 22(5) - Detention order. - Where opportunity to make representation was afforded to detenu, on basis of material supplied to him, therefore, mandate of Article 22(5) of Constitution complied with. - It is settled position in law that the mandate of Article 22(5) has to be complied with in meaningful manner. In the facts of the present case the petitioner was provided with opportunity to make representation on the basis of the material supplied to him. On reading the in-camera statements the detaining authority was satisfied after going through the record which apparently disclosed that the activities of the petitioner are disturbing the public order. The people at large are under fear and reluctant to come forward to lodge complaint against the petitioner. The detaining authority was subjectively satisfied that a case is made out to detain the petitioner.
Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords, Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Dangerous Offenders, Dangerous Persons and Video Pirates Act, 1981 - Section 3 - Detention order. - Where sponsoring authority after verifying truthfulness of incident narrated by witnesses and fear expressed by them, had put necessary endorsement therefore order of detention not vitiated on ground that such verification was defective. - The sponsoring authority’s satisfaction in respect of the incident, its genuineness, truthfulness and genuineness of the statement is lacking. After considering the endorsements made by the sponsoring authority and the affidavit-in-reply filed Court is of the view that the sponsoring authority was satisfied in respect of the truthfulness of the incident narrated by the witnesses and the fear expressed by them. After verifying the same he had put necessary endorsement.
Law is settled that if in-camera statement discloses verification about truthfulness of such statement and the identity of the person concerned to the satisfaction of the officer verifying the statement, no challenge could be entertained on the ground that the verification was defective.
Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords, Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Dangerous Offenders, Dangerous Persons and Video Pirates Act, 1981 - Section 3 - Order of detention. - Since detenu is aware of Marathi language hence typographical error occurring in English translation of detention order, not vitiates order of detention. - The ground was raised in respect of English translation of the detention order and other documents being defective. It is not the case of the petitioner that the petitioner is not aware of Marathi language. Even if there are some typographical error occurring in the translation they are not material so as to raise an issue. On this ground the detention order does not get vitiated.
Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords, Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Dangerous Offenders, Dangerous Persons and Video Pirates Act, 1981 - Section 3 - Order of preventive detention. - Subjective satisfaction of Detaining Authority to detain detenu derived from materials in form of record of criminal cases against detenu and confidential statement of witnesses, not improper. - There was no live link between t he statements, the fear expressed by the witnesses, the crime registered and the detention order. From the material placed on record we find that there is material against the petitioner in the form of record of criminal cases and the confidential statements of the witnesses, based on which the detaining authority recorded its satisfaction to detain the petitioner. Therefore this ground does not survive.
Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords, Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Dangerous Offenders, Dangerous Persons and Video Pirates Act, 1981 - Section 3 - Order of preventive detention. - Where reference of earlier cases lodged against detenu not formed ground for satisfaction of Detaining Authority therefore non-production of material in respect of such earlier cases, not vitiates order of detention. - In the facts of the case and the material brought on record Court finds that the detaining authority had referred to the cases lodged against the petitioner from the year 2004 onwards as preamble to the order of detention. In the facts of the case the same would not vitiate the detention order. The detaining authority has given satisfactory explanation in this regard.
The detaining authority had derived its subjective satisfaction from two in-camera statements recorded and the proceedings of Crime No. 3/2012 against the petitioner. In respect of the said crime copies of charge-sheet and bail order were produced by the sponsoring authority before the detaining authority. In the facts of the present case and the record placed before the detaining authority, the reference to the earlier cases lodged against the petitioner was by way of preamble and did not form ground for satisfaction of the authority concerned.
NareshH Patil, J.
1) Through this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the order dated 14-9-2012 passed by District Magistrate, Jalgaon, detaining the petitioner for one year in exercise of powers conferred by sub section (1) of Section 3 of the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of slumlords, Bootleggers, Drug Offenders and Dangerous Persons Act, 1981 (for short, “the Act of 1981”) is challenged.
2) The detaining authority was satisfied that the petitioner was possessing
dangerous weapons and indulged in creating terror and fear amongst the people. The petitioner committed offenses as mentioned in Chapter 16 and 17 of the Indian Penal Code. The petitioner has no fear of law. Due to the activities of the petitioner sense of insecurity prevailed in the minds of general public. The detaining authority further observed that the petitioner is a rancorous person of vindictive nature who prevents people from lodging complaint against him. There are various offences registered against the petitioner in several police stations of Jalgaon. Despite repeated initiations of preventive actions against the petitioner no improvement was noticed in the behavior of the petitioner. The detaining authority was of the opinion that the tendency of committing offences in a variety of modes was increasing. Due to activities of the petitioner, the petitioner had become a notorious person causing danger to the lives of peace-loving and law-abiding general people of Jalgaon city.
3) The detaining authority had mentioned details of registration of several offences against the petitioner in various police stations of Jalgaon city including Shanipeth Police Station, Zilla Peth Police Station, Jalgaon City Police Station and MIDC Police Station. The steps taken in respect of preventive action initiated against the petitioner were also mentioned which were in the jurisdiction of Shanipeth and Zilla Peth Police Stations. The offences registered against the petitioner from the year 2004 onwards were mentioned.
4) The detaining authority had referred to confidential statements of confidential witness “A” and witness “B”. The detaining authority had informed the petitioner in view of the provisions of Section 3(3) of the Act of 1981 that petitioner has a right to make representation against the detention order to the detaining authority i.e. the District Magistrate, Jalgaon. The petitioner was further informed that he has a right to make representation against the detention order with the State Government which could be made through the Superintendent of Prison of the prison wherein the petitioner at the relevant time was lodged. The said representation was to be addressed to the Additional Chief Secretary (Home), Government of Maharashtra. As per the provisions of Section 9 of the Act of 1981 the petitioner was informed that he can make submissions about the detention order with the Advisory Board. The Advisory Board was entitled to hear the petitioner personally.
5) According to the petitioner the detaining authority had considered some of the offences in detail for forming its opinion. In respect of following offences, the petitioner submits that, the detaining authority had exhibited non application of mind:--
(A) SCC No. 261/2008 arising out of Crime No.36/2007 registered at Shanipeth Police Station Jalgoan is shown to have been pending. The said offence was compounded on 29-7-2008. This fact was not brought to the notice of the detaining authority.
(B) Crime No.90 of 2011 was registered in Jalgaon City Police Station. It was mentioned by the detaining authority that charge sheet is filed and the case bearing RCC No.406 of 2011 is still pending. The detaining authority was not made aware that in the said case the petitioner was acquitted by order dated 8-6-2012.
(C) Crime No.101 of 2007 was shown to have been registered in MIDC Police Station, Jalgaon. The detaining authority mentioned that the said ca
