Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR
NITIN W. SAMBRE, MRS.VRUSHALI V. JOSHI, JJ.
Akash @ Chakan @ Golu Ajay Motghare - Appellant
Versus
State Of Maharashtra - Respondent
WP 732 / 2024
Decided On : 13-02-2025
(A) Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords, Bootleggers, Drug-Offenders, Dangerous Persons, Video Pirates, Sand Smugglers and Person Engaged in Black Marketing of Essential Commodities Act, 1981 - Section 3(2) - Detention order challenged on grounds of reliance on stale offences and lack of Chemical Analyzer report - Detention order quashed due to non-application of mind by the detaining authority and reliance on irrelevant material. (Paras 2, 4, 7, 12, 13)
(B) Detention - Subjective satisfaction of detaining authority must be based on relevant and current material - Reliance on old offences and absence of crucial reports vitiates the order. (Paras 8, 12)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner was detained under the MPDA Act based on two recent crimes and twelve earlier offences. The detention order was challenged on grounds including the lack of a Chemical Analyzer report and reliance on stale offences.
Findings of Court:
The detention order was quashed due to the detaining authority's failure to provide necessary reports and reliance on irrelevant material.
Issues: The main issues included the validity of the detention order based on stale offences and the absence of a Chemical Analyzer report.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority must be based on relevant and current material, and reliance on stale offences and lack of crucial reports vitiates the detention order.
Result: The petition is allowed; the detention order is quashed and set aside.
JUDGMENT :
(Vrushali V. Joshi, J.)
Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally with the consent of learned Advocates for the parties.
2. The petitioner/detenu, who is detained in furtherance of an order dated 10.7.2024 passed by respondent No.2/the District Collector, Wardha, has approached this Court praying for quashing and setting aside the said order and to release him forthwith. The petitioner has been detained by respondent No.2, who has confirmed the detention order dated 10.7.2024 by exercising powers conferred under sub-section (2) of Section 3 of the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords, Bootleggers, Drug-Offenders, Dangerous Persons, Video Pirates, Sand Smugglers and Person Engaged in Black Marketing of Essential Commodities Act, 1981 (for short “MPDA Act”) and directed him to be detained at Nagpur Central Prison, Nagpur. The petitioner was served with the grounds of detention on the very same day.
3. Two crimes have been relied upon, in particular, Crime No.402/2024 and Crime No.222/2024 while passing the detention order. Twelve earlier offences alleged to have been committed by the detenu since 2022 to 2024 are also considered by the detaining authority. The petitioner has been shown as an under trial for two years. Both the above recent crimes considered for passing the detention order are registered under Section 65(e), 77(a) and 83 of the Maharashtra Prohibition Act, 1949.
Crime No.402/2024 was registered at Police Station Ramnagar, Distt. Wardha on 24.5.2024 while Crime No.222/2024 was registered at Police Station Sewagram, Distt. Wardha on 15.3.2024. Grounds of detention state about illegal smuggling and selling of foreign and country liquor in the area of jurisdiction of Police Stations Ramnagar, Sewagram, Sawangi (Meghe), Kharangana and adjoining areas of District Wardha.
4. The petitioner has assailed the detention order on various grounds, as set out in the petition, which are as under:-
(a) One of the grounds raised is that Chemical Analyzer report in Crime No.402/2024 is still awaited and thus, said crime could not have been relied upon for passing the detention order.
(b) Further, the offences at serial Nos.4 to 14 are old and stale and are relied on for passing the detention order and, therefore, subjective satisfaction of detaining authority is vitiated.
(c) Para No.10 of the detention order states that it is based on two offences and thereafter twelve earlier offences from 2022 to 2024 are also considered for passing the detention order which shows non-application of mind by the detaining authority.
5. Learned Advocate for the petitioner submits that the opinion of the Chief Medical Officer, General Hospital, Wardha is based on nine C.A. reports and C.A. reports of Crime Nos.478/2021, 724/2021, 347/2020, 229/2020 and 358/2018 are supplied to the Chief Medical Officer, General Hospital, Wardha for seeking his opinion. These crimes have not been taken into account while passing the order of detention. Thus, irrelevant and extraneous material is placed before respondent No.2 which is considered by the detaining authority. He further submitted that illegible copy of C.A. report in Crime No.478/2021 is provided to the detenu.
The learned Advocate for the petitioner further argued that the last offence was registered against the petitioner on 24.5.2024 and the detention order came to be passed on 10.7.2024, therefore, there is delay in passing the detention order. Hence he has prayed to allow the writ petition.
6. Per contra, learned A.P.P. strongly opposed the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner. Learned A.P.P contended that C.A. reports of earlier offences showing bootlegging activities of the detenu and percentage of ethyl alcohol was found dangerous to the public health and, therefore, considering this aspect, the detaining authority after being satisfied from the record, has passed the detention order.
Learned A.P.P invited our attention to the aspect that the documents ann
Detention orders must rely on current and relevant material; reliance on stale offences and absence of crucial reports vitiates the order.
Detention orders must be based on relevant evidence and objective criteria; absence of chemical analysis reports and reliance on vague witness statements render such orders unsustainable.
Preventive detention requires credible evidence linking the detainee's actions to public order threats; absence of such evidence invalidates the detention order.
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 under the Maharashtra Act requires clear evidence that the substance is dangerous to public health; insufficient evidence leads to the quashing of detention orders.
Preventive detention under the M.P.D.A. Act is justified when the detaining authority's subjective satisfaction is based on credible evidence of serious offences affecting public order.
Detention orders require a live link to current public order threats; insufficient evidence to classify an individual as a dangerous person renders the order illegal.
Detention orders must provide compelling reasons when the detenu is already in custody, and all relevant materials must be considered by the detaining authority.
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....
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....
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
