Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT NAGPUR
Vinay Joshi, Bharat P. Deshpande, JJ.
Gajanan Pundlik Londhe – Appellant
Versus
State of Maharashtra & Ors. – Respondents
Criminal Writ Petition No. 875 of 2022
Decided On : 10-04-2023
Detention Order - Legality of detention order under Section 12 of the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords, Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Dangerous Persons, Video Pirates, Sand Smugglers and Persons Engaged in Black Marketing of Essential Commodities Act, 1981 (MPID Act) - [Section 12 of the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords, Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Dangerous Persons, Video Pirates, Sand Smugglers and Persons Engaged in Black Marketing of Essential Commodities Act, 1981] - The court found that the detention order suffered from settled proposition of law and therefore, quashed and set it aside. The detention order failed to record subjective satisfaction on the basis of material placed before it and considered extraneous material which vitiates the detention order. No offence of murder or dacoity was found registered against the detenue as per the list provided in the grounds of detention. There was a delay in passing the detention order which was not properly explained. Witness A lodged two police reports which ruled out the possibility of witnesses appearing either before the Police or before the Court to depose against the detenue.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner questioned the legality of the detention order dated 08/08/2022 and confirmed by the State under Section 12 of the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords, Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Dangerous Persons, Video Pirates, Sand Smugglers and Persons Engaged in Black Marketing of Essential Commodities Act, 1981 (MPID Act). The petitioner argued that the orders of detention were bad in law due to the failure to consider settled proposition of law, suppression of material, lack of live link with the mentioned offences, and absence of subjective satisfaction by the Detaining Authority.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the detention order suffered from settled proposition of law and therefore, quashed and set it aside. The detention order failed to record subjective satisfaction on the basis of material placed before it and considered extraneous material which vitiates the detention order. No offence of murder or dacoity was found registered against the detenue as per the list provided in the grounds of detention. There was a delay in passing the detention order which was not properly explained. Witness A lodged two police reports which ruled out the possibility of witnesses appearing either before the Police or before the Court to depose against the detenue.
Issues: Legality of the detention order under Section 12 of the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords, Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Dangerous Persons, Video Pirates, Sand Smugglers and Persons Engaged in Black Marketing of Essential Commodities Act, 1981 (MPID Act)
Ratio Decidendi: The detention order failed to record subjective satisfaction on the basis of material placed before it and considered extraneous material which vitiates the detention order. No offence of murder or dacoity was found registered against the detenue as per the list provided in the grounds of detention. There was a delay in passing the detention order which was not properly explained. Witness A lodged two police reports which ruled out the possibility of witnesses appearing either before the Police or before the Court to depose against the detenue.
Final Decision: The court quashed and set aside the detention order dated 08/08/2022 and confirmed on 14/09/2022. The petitioner was ordered to be released forthwith, if not required in any other offence.
JUDGMENT
Bharat P. Deshpande, J. - Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Heard the learned counsel for the parties with consent.
2. The petitioner is questioning the legality or otherwise of the detention order dated 08/08/2022 and confirmed by the State / respondent No.1 under Section 12 of the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords, Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Dangerous Persons, Video Pirates, Sand Smugglers and Persons Engaged in Black Marketing of Essential Commodities Act, 1981 (MPID Act).
3. Heard Shri M. N. Ali, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri N. R. Rode, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent Nos.1 and 2.
4. We have considered the record and more specifically the original statements of Witnesses A and B as well as verification carried out by Sub-Divisional Police Officer (SDPO) on 30/05/2022.
5. Shri Ali, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the orders of detention passed by the respondent No.2 and confirmed by respondent No.1 are bad in law as the said authority failed to consider the settled proposition of law while issuing detention order. He would submit that the material has been suppressed with regard to the dates of recording of statements of Witnesses A and B when the same were verified from the petitioner and therefore, he was unable to file effective representation. Secondly, he claimed that there is no live link with regard to the offences which are mentioned in the detention order, but not relied upon while passing such order. He then would submit that two offences relied upon by the Detaining Authority are not in any way connected with disturbance of public peace. The statements of Witnesses A and B are the allegations in general and not about the specific instances. The bail order in which the petitioner was released, was not placed before the Detaining Authority. There is inordinate and unexplained delay from the date of last offence and the order of detention. There is no subjective satisfaction arrived at by the Detaining Authority which vitiates the impugned order.
6. Per contra, Shri Rode, learned Additional Public Prosecutor has opposed the petition on the ground that delay has been properly explained by the Detaining Authority and there is live link between the offences relied upon in the detention order. He would submit that the original record shows the details mentioned in the statements of the witnesses, which were masked while giving copies to the petitioner only to protect the life and liberty of such a witness which is within the powers of the Detaining Authority. He would submit that there is subjective satisfaction recorded by the Detaining Authority on the basis of material placed before it while passing the detention order.
7. Shri M.N.Ali, learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the following decisions :-
ii] 2012 ALL SCR 1373 Rushikesh Tanaji Bhoite Vrs. State of Maharashtra and others.
iii] Criminal Writ Petition No.820/2021 decided on 01/07/2022 Ratnamala Mukund Balkhande Vrs. State of Maharashtra and others.
iv] 2001 ALL MR (Cri) 1616 Sanjay s/o Balaram Kirale Vrs. State of Maharashtra and another.
v] 2013 ALL MR (Cri) 3870 Niyazuddin @ Sonu Sirajuddin Ansari Vrs. State of Maharashtra and another.
vi] 2014 ALL MR (Cri) 2409 Mohsin Ahmed s/o Mustaque Ahmed Vrs. State of Maharashtra and another.
vii] 2020 ALL MR (Cri) 1930 Mohamad Ishaq Mohamad Ismail Shaikh Vrs. Shri Sanjay Barve and others.
viii] 2021 DGLS (Bom.) 1243 Bharat Kisan Mekale Vrs. Commissioner of Police and others.
ix] Criminal Writ Petition No.833/2021 decided on 01/07/2022. Ram Anil Bhaskar Vrs. Additional Chief Secretary, Government of Maharashtra, Home Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai and others.
x] Criminal Writ Petition No.768/2015 decided on 01/02/2016. Sanjay s/o Ramlal Shahu Vrs. State of Maharashtra and another.
xi] Criminal Writ Petition No.49/2023 decided on 14/03/2
The detention order must record subjective satisfaction on the basis of material placed before it and should not consider extraneous material. The delay in passing the detention order must be properl....
Criminal activities - Detention order - Both predicate offences, in our view, do not shed light on the activities, which had propensity to cause or calculated to cause harm, danger or alarm or a feel....
(1) Preventive detention – It is not open to detaining authority to simply refer to stale incidents and hold them as basis of order of detention.(2) Preventive detention – Disorderly behaviour of a p....
The court established that a detention order can be upheld despite delays if the detaining authority provides satisfactory explanations and demonstrates a live link between the incidents and the orde....
The court affirmed that in-camera statements can be utilized to establish a public order situation for preventive detention under the MPDA Act, and that the subjective satisfaction of the detaining a....
Minor typographical errors in translation and formulation of grounds of detention do not invalidate a detention order if the detaining authority has valid reasons to believe that the detainee's activ....
The judgment establishes the importance of a clear nexus between alleged activities and disturbance of public order to justify preventive detention under the MPD Act, emphasizing the need for subject....
The detention order must be based on material that constitutes a breach of public order, and the authority must record its subjective satisfaction on the basis of consideration of material before it.
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
