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.

JUDGMENT :

VRUSHALI V. JOSHI J.

1. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of learned counsel appearing for the parties.

2. By this petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 12.08.2023 passed by respondent No.2 and dated 21.09.2023 passed by respondent No.1 detaining him under the provisions of the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords, Bootleggers, Drug-Offenders, Dangerous Persons and Video Pirates, Sand Smugglers and Persons Engaged in Black Marketing of Essential Commodities Act, 1981.

3. The petitioner came to be detained vide order dated 12.08.2023 passed by the District Magistate, Nagpur in exercise of powers under 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, thereby holding that the petitioner’s activity is detrimental to the maintenance of public order. The detention order is questioned on the ground that the material which is considered for recording subjective satisfaction is without any legal basis.

4. According to the learned Counsel for the petitioner, apart from earlier seven offences, two recent offences are considered by the detaining authority, which were registered from 25.11.2021 to 27.04.2023. All the offences are punishable under Section 65(e) of the MAHARASHTRA PROHIBITION ACT , 1949.

5. The learned Counsel for the petitioner urges that, the opinion of Forensic Science Laboratory Department does not say that, the quantity of ethyl alcohol allegedly found was dangerous for public health and in the absence of specific report to that effect impugned order could not have been passed. Further, Chemical Analysis report in Crime No. 129/2023 was not sent for the opinion of Forensic Science Laboratory Department and, therefore, satisfaction expressed by the detaining authority while passing the impugned order is vitiated suffering from non-application of mind.

6. Another aspect about the in-camera statements of the witnesses is that the identity of witness ‘A’ gets disclosed somehow by the addition of the statement that she is the neighbour of the petitioner knowing him since last 7 to 8 years.

7. The earlier offences ought not to have formed basis for ordering detention. In addition to which, the offences which are punishable under the provisions of the MAHARASHTRA PROHIBITION ACT could be effectively dealt under the said Act. Detailed report of the Chemical Analysis for bringing home the guilt of the accused is necessary for the offence under the MAHARASHTRA PROHIBITION ACT . The petitioner has relied on the following judgments in support of his contentions.

i] Khaja Bilal Ahmed Vs. State of Telangana and Others , 2019 DGLS (SC) 1677.

ii] Deepak Dattu Suryawanshi Vs. Commissioner of Police and Others [2016 DGLS (Bom.) 1001]

iii] Hanif Karim Laluwale Vs. State of Maharashtra [Criminal Writ Petition No.75/2022]

iv] Nilesh Charandas Gaikwad Vs. State of Maharashtra and Anr. [Criminal Writ Petition No.804/2021]

v] Ibrahim @ Tipu @ Tipya s/o. Sattar Maniyar Vs. The State of Maharashtra [Criminal Writ Petition No.1383/2023]

vi] Shaikh Gaffar @ Bablu Shaikh Sattar Vs. State of Maharashtra and Anr. [Criminal Writ Petition No.940/2023]

vii] Mohammad Arbaz @ Sanu S/o. Mohammad Israil @ Manja Ansari Vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors. [Criminal Writ Petition No.347/2023]

viii] Hanif @ Illu Hafiz Ansari Arak Vs. The State of Maharashtra and Others [Criminal Writ Petition No.546/2023]

ix] Gajanan Pundlik Londhe Vs. S