Back
SHAILESH P. BRAHME, MANGESH S. PATIL
Vinod Dhannulal Jaiswal – Appellant
Versus
District Magistrate Aurangabad – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
(Mangesh S. Patil, J.) :
Heard. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Learned APP waives service for all the respondents. At the joint request of the parties the matter is heard finally at the stage of admission.
2. By resorting to the provisions of Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner is challenging the order passed by the respondent No.1 – Detaining Authority under Section 3(2) of the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords, void Bootleggers, Drug-Offenders, Dangerous Persons and Video Pirates Act, 1981 (herein after the MPDA Act) dated 14.07.2023, directing his detention with a view to prevent him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the mandates of public order being a bootlegger. He has taken into consideration inter alia, twelve crimes registered against him of which the last three were under the provisions of Section 65(e) of the Maharashtra Prohibition Act, 1949 (the Prohibition Act) registered on 31.03.2023, 17.06.2023 and 18.06.2023. He took into consideration that even a preventive action under Section 93 of the Prohibition Act initiated against him on 31.03.2023. The respondent No.1 – Detaining Authority ha
The court emphasized the importance of subjective satisfaction, expert opinion, and the adequacy of regular criminal laws in determining the validity of detention under the MPDA Act.
Detention order confirmed - Habitually indulged in manufacture, transportation and sale of illicit liquor - Acts and conduct attributed to petitioner were prejudicial to maintenance of public order o....
The subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority as regards the acts of the detenu being prejudicial to the interest of the society and public order, is sufficient to justify the preventive det....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for credible material to justify detention under the MPDA Act, and the emphasis on the adverse effects of bootlegging activities on....
The detention order must be supported by material demonstrating prejudicial conduct to public order, and the authorities must consider the detenu's representation at the earliest, as mandated by cons....
The apprehension that the activities of the detenue are likely to affect adversely the maintenance of public order is sufficient for invoking the provisions of the MPDA Act.
Detention orders must rely on current and relevant material; reliance on stale offences and absence of crucial reports vitiates the order.
(1) Preventive Detention - Power of preventive detention is qualitatively different from punitive detention - An order of preventive detention, may be made before or during prosecution - Pendency of ....
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
