Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
T. V. Nalawade, M. G. Sewlikar, JJ.
NARAYAN RADHAKISHAN BHUSARI - Petitioner
Vs.
DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, BEED and others - Respondents
Cri. W. P. No. 1337 of 2020
decided On : 15-12-2020
Sand Smuggler - Detention under MPDA Act - Section 3 of the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords, Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Dangerous Person, Video Pirates, Sand Smuggler and Black Marketing of Essential Commodities Act, 1981 - 325, 323, 504, 34 IPC, 353, 332, 143, 147, 336, 379, 427, 504, 506, 111 IPC r/w sec. 3, 4 of Mines & Minerals Act, r/w Sec. 125 of Maharashtra Police Act, 279, 379 I.P.C. r/w 21(I), 21(2) Mines & Minerals Act r/w 184 of M.V. Act, 188, 279, 270 IPC r/w Sec. 51(B) of Disaster Management Act 2005 r/w Sec. 3, 4 Mines & Minerals Act - The court discussed the definitions of 'dangerous person' and 'sand smuggler' under the MPDA Act, and the legal provisions related to detention, communication of grounds, and approval process. The court found that the Detaining Authority subjectively satisfied itself that the petitioner's activities were prejudicial to the maintenance of public order, and all procedural requirements were complied with. The petition was dismissed and the rule discharged.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner challenged his detention under Section 3 of the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords, Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Dangerous Person, Video Pirates, Sand Smuggler and Black Marketing of Essential Commodities Act, 1981. The petitioner was alleged to be a sand smuggler and a 'dangerous person' due to multiple criminal activities, including theft of sand and violent offenses, which were considered prejudicial to the maintenance of public order.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the Detaining Authority subjectively satisfied itself that the petitioner's activities were prejudicial to the maintenance of public order, and all procedural requirements were complied with. The petition was dismissed and the rule discharged.
Issues: The issues involved the challenge of the petitioner's detention under the MPDA Act, including the subjective satisfaction of the Detaining Authority, communication of grounds, and approval process.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the Detaining Authority subjectively satisfied itself that the petitioner's activities were prejudicial to the maintenance of public order, and all procedural requirements were complied with, leading to the dismissal of the petition.
Final Decision: The petition was dismissed and the rule discharged.
JUDGMENT :
M. G. SEWLIKAR, J.
Rule. Rule returnable forthwith.
2. By consent, heard both the sides at admission stage for final disposal.
3. By this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged his detention under Section 3 of the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords, Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Dangerous Person, Video Pirates, Sand Smuggler and Black Marketing of Essential Commodities Act, 1981 (hereinafter referred to as the “MPDA Act”).
4. Facts leading to this petition are that on 18-8-2020, the sponsoring authority forwarded the proposal for detention of the petitioner on the grounds that several offences of theft of sand have been registered against the petitioner and the petitioner is in the habit of committing offences. To contain his activities, proceedings under Section 107 of the Code of Criminal Procedure have also been initiated against him. But the same had no deterrent effect on the petitioner. The petitioner has no fear of law. It is further alleged that he has been continuously engaging himself in the commission of violent activities which have created terror in the mind of the persons residing in the area of operation and has disturbed the even tempo of life as well as public order. Accordingly, the Detaining Authority i.e. the District Magistrate, Beed, communicated the grounds of detention to the petitioner. The Detaining Authority informed the petitioner vide the aforesaid communication dated 19-8-2020 that following offences have been registered against him :—
Sr. No. Police Station & C.R. No. Section Filling date Court Case No. Remarks
01 P.S. Gondi 152/2016 325, 323, 504, 34 IPC 2252016 RCC No. 318/17 Pending in Court
02 P.S. Gondi 403/2017 353, 332, 143, 147, 336, 379, 427, 504, 506, 111 IPC r/w sec. 3, 4 of Mines & Minerals Act, r/w Sec. 125 of Maharashtra Police Act 20122017 RCC No. 149/2019 29419
Pending in Court
03 P.S. Gondi 314/2019 379 IPC r/w 3, 4 Mines & Minerals Act 882019 RCC No. 302/2019 1692019
Pending in Court
04 P. S. Georai 40/2019 279, 379 I.P.C. r/w 21(I), 21(2) Mines & Minerals Act r/w 184 of M.V. Act 522019 RCC No. 135/2019 1682019
Pending in Court
05 P.S. Georai 233/2020 379 IPC 1652020 — On investigation
06 P.S. Georai 353, 379, 511, 506, 34 IPC 1262020 — On investigation
07 P.S. Georai 302/2020 379 IPC 172020 — On investigation
08 P.S. Gondi 100/2020 353, 379, 143, 147, 504, 506 of IPC
r/w 3, 4 Mines & Minerals Act r/w 135 of Maharashtra Police Act 1732020 — On investigation
09 P.S. Georai 329/2020 379, 188, 279,
270 IPC r/w Sec. 51(B) of Disaster
Management Act 2005 r/w Sec. 3, 4 Mines & Minerals Act 1772020 On investigation
5. It is further informed to the petitioner vide this communication that these offences have been registered against him from time to time but his criminal activities continued and it had no reformatory effect on the petitioner. It is further informed to the petitioner that preventive action was initiated against him in Chapter Case No. 27/2019 under Section 107 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Petitioner committed offences under Sections 379, 188, 279, 270 of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 51(B) of the Disaster Management Act, 2005, read with Sections 3, 4 of Mines & Minerals Act vide C.R. No. 329/2020 registered with Georai police station. It is alleged that all these criminal activities show that the petitioner has violent tendencies therefore, the petitioner is a “dangerous person”. These criminal activities of the petitioner are prejudicial to the maintenance of public order as defined under Section 2(a)(iv) of the MPDA Act.
6. The grounds of detention further mention that the Detaining Authority considered only one offence viz., CR No. 329/2020 registered on 17-7-2020 with Georai police station. The Detaining Authority also considered the incamera statements of witnesses A and B and satisfied itself subjectively that the petitioner is i
AI
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
