IMPORTANT POINT
The impact of the detenu's activities on public order and the application of Section 5A of the Act in evaluating the grounds of challenge to the detention order.

JUDGMENT :

Shailesh P. Brahme, J.

Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Heard both the sides finally with their consent.

2. This petition seeks to challenge order dated 29.09.2023 passed by the District Magistrate, Jalgaon detaining the petitioner U/Sec. 3(1) of the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords, Bootleggers, Drug Offenders and Dangerous Persons and Video Pirates Act, 1981 (hereinafter referred as to the ‘M.P.D.A. Act’ for the sake of brevity and convenience).

3. The respondent No. 2/District Magistrate proceeded against the petitioner U/Sec. 3(1) of the M. P. D. A. Act on the basis of five offences, two preventive actions and in camera statements of the witnesses. The petitioner is held to be a bootlegger, whose activities are recorded to be prejudicial to the maintenance of public order.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has advanced following submissions :

I. Subjective satisfaction is perverse.

II. In CR No. 760/2018 and CR. No. 24/2019, the petitioner does not figure in FIR.

III. Most of the crimes are shown to be against one Santosh Raut not the petitioner.

IV. There is no incriminating material to proceed against the petitioner for draconian action.

V. There is no expert opinion solicited on the chemical analyzers reports.

VI. There is delay in taking action against the petitioner.

VII. In camera statements have not been verified by the competent authority.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner places reliance on the following judgments in support of his submissions.

(i) Pradeep Nilkanth Paturkar Vs. S. Ramamurthi and others reported in 1993 SCC (Cri) 392.

(ii) District Collector Ananthapur and another Vs. V. Laxmanna reported in (2005) 3 SCC 663.

(iii) Judgment dated 09.02.2024 of this Court in the matter of Ganesh @ Nana Gangaram Koli Vs. The State of Maharashtra and others in Cri. W.P. No. 1530 of 2023.

6. The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor supports the impugned order. She seeks reliance on the affidavit in reply filed to repeal the submissions of the petitioner. She would submit that there is cogent material against the petitioner which is rightly appreciated by the detaining authority. The petitioner has been properly identified and he is involved in the offence pitted against him. The time line has been properly followed by the authorities. There is due verification of in camera statements. As such there is no informity or illegality in the impugned action.

7. The learned A. P. P. has placed reliance on following judgments :

A. Hasan Khan Ibne Haider Khan Vs. R.H. Mendnoca reported in 200 (5) Bom.C.R. 814.

B. Judgment dated 17.01.2024 of this Court in the matter of Vinod Dhannulal Jaiswal Vs. District Magistrate and others in Cri. W.P. No. 1430 of 2023.

8. We have considered rival submissions of the parties. All offences registered against the petitioner, which are considered by the detaining authority are under the provisions of the Maharashtra Prohibition Act, 1941. It cannot be ignored that two offences bearing CR No. 124/2020 and 530/2021 under the self same Act were registered, preceding CR No. 581/2021 which is considered by the respondent No. 2. The petitioner appears to have been involved in the criminal activities between 2018 to 2023. Last, two offences bearing CR. No. 375/2023 and 573/2023 have been registered after the preventive action U/Sec. 93 of the Maharashtra Prevention Act is taken against the petitioner. Preventive action has not deterred the petitioner from continuing with his notoriety.

9. In all offences which are considered by the detaining authority, the petitioner is found to be in possession of illicit liquor and selling it. In camera statements of both the witnesses reveal that the petitioner has a illicit liquor den at various places in the vicinity of Kusumba. He is aggressive and has a tendency to terrorise people. Nobody dares to complain against him or depose against him. The activities of the petitioner are squarely covered by definition of bootlegger p