IMPORTANT POINT
Statements of persons/witnesses recorded in-camera can form the basis of detention order under Section 3 of the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords, Bootleggers, Drug Offenders and Dangerous Persons Act.

Headnote:Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords, Bootleggers, Drug Offenders and Dangerous Persons Act, 1981-Section 3 r/w Section 2(b-i)-Preventive detention-Dangerous person-Detention on basis of statements of witnesses recorded in in-camera proceedings-Challenge that in-camera statements could not be basis for detention order-Held, it is neither possible nor advisable to catalogue types of materials which can form basis of detention order-Facts stated in material relied upon should be true and should have reasonable nexus with purpose for which order is passed-On facts detention order justified.
       Held : The detention order against the appellant herein was passed on the allegations that he was persistently engaged in criminal activities which adversely affected the maintenance of public order in the localities, and therefore, with a view to prevent him from engaging in such activities it was necessary to preventively detain him under the provisions of the Act. For consideration of the question whether the appellant could be said to be a dangerous person it is necessary to read the definition of the term in Section 2(b-1) and the provision of Section 2(a)(iv) regarding the meaning of the term "acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order". Under the explanation under Section 2(a)(iv) it is provided that public order shall be deemed to have been affected adversely or shall have deemed likely to be affected adversely if any of the activities of any of the persons referred to in the clause directly or indirectly, is causing or calculated to cause any harm, danger or alarm or a feeling of insecurity, among the general public or any section thereof, or a grave or widespread danger to life or public health. The deeming clause in the explanation widens the scope of the provision in Section 2(a)(iv). It follows that if a person found to be repeatedly engaged in such activities as mentioned in Section 2(b-1) which affect adversely or are likely to affect adversely the maintenance of public order he can be detained as a dangerous person in exercise of the power under Section 3 of the Act. (Para 15)
       Then comes the crucial question whether in-camera statements of persons/witnesses can be utilised for the purpose of arriving at subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority for passing the order of detention. Our attention has not been drawn to any provision of the Act which expressly or impliedly lays down the type of material which can form the basis of a detention order under Section 3 of the Act. Preventive detention measure is a harsh, but it becomes necessary in larger interest of society. It is in the nature of a precautionary measure taken for preservation of public order. The power is to be used with caution and circumspection. For the purpose of exercise of the power it is not necessary to prove to the hilt that the person concerned had committed any of the offences as stated in the Act. It is sufficient if from the material available on record the detaining authority could reasonably feel satisfied about the necessity for detention of the person concerned in order to prevent him from indulging in activities prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. In the absence of any provision specifying the type of material which may or may not be taken into consideration by the detaining authority and keeping in view the purpose the statute is intended to achieve the power vested in the detaining authority should not be unduly restricted. It is neither possible nor advisable to catalogue the types of materials which can form the basis of a detention order under the Act. That will depend on the facts and situation of a case. Presumably, that is why the Parliament did not make any provision in the Act in that regard and left the matter to the discretion of the detaining authority. However, the facts stated in the materials relied upon should be true and should have a reasonable nexus with the purpose for which the order is passed. (Para 16)
       From the grounds of detention and the papers enclosed with it copies of which were served on the detenu it is clear that the detaining authority based his subjective satisfaction on a series of contemporaneous incidents in which the detenu was involved. The satisfaction was not based on a single or stray incident. In the in-camera statements separate incidents of criminal activities of the detenu were stated. The assertions are not assailed as untrue nor can they be said to be irrelevant for the purpose of the order. On such materials on record it cannot be said that there was no basis for the detaining authority to feel satisfied that the detenu was either himself or as a member or leader of a gang habitually committed or attempted to commit or abetted the commission of any of the offences stated in Section 2(b-1). Therefore, the contention raised by learned counsel for the petitioner that the conclusion arrived at by the detaining authority that the detenu was a dangerous person within the meaning of Section 2(b-1) was vitiated cannot be accepted. In our view the detention order under challenge does not suffer from any infirmity. (Para 17)

JUDGMENT

D.P. Mohapatra, J.-Leave granted.

2. In this appeal filed by the mother of Shyamsunder @ Navin @ Amar @ Mahesh Jagdambaprasad Pathak, the detenu, the judgment of the Bombay High Court in Criminal Writ Petition No. 872 of 1999, dismissing the writ petition is sought to be assailed. In the aforementioned criminal writ petition the appellant had challenged the order of dentention dated 19.6.1999 passed by the Commissioner of Police, Brihan Mumbai, detaining Jagdambaprasad Pathak under sub section (1) of Section 3 of the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords, Bootleggers, Drug Offenders and Dangerous Persons Act, 1981 (No. LV of 1981) (for short referred to as the Act).

3. The detaining authority passed the order in exercise of the power conferred by sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the Act with the government order, Home Department (Special) No. DDS-1399/1/SPL-3(B) dated 30th March, 1999, on being satisfied that it was necessary to make an order directing detention of the detenu with a view to prevent him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. By a separate order passed on the same day, the detenu was directed to be detained at Nasik Road Central Prison, Nasik. The grounds on which the detention order was made were communicated by the detaining authority to the detenu by a separate communication on the same day. It was specifically stated in the said communication that copies of the documents placed before the detaining authority were enclosed excepting the names and identifying particulars of the witnesses/victims in connection with the grounds mentioned in paragraph No. 4(b)(i) and 4(b)(ii) which could not be furnished to the detenu in public interest. In paragraph 2 of the communication, it was averred :

"Your criminal record shows that, you are a dangerous person of violent character and also a weapon wielding desperado. You have created terror in localities of Kherwadi Road, Teen Bungalow, Chamdewandi, J.P. Road, Khar (East) and the areas adjoining thereto within the jurisdiction of Nirmal Nagar Police Station in Brihan Mumbai.

You and your like-minded associates always move in the above areas armed with dangerous weapons like Revolver and Chopper and do not hesitate to use the same while committing the offence like robbery, extortion, assault, attempt to commit murder, criminal intimidation etc. Due to your criminal activities which are prejudicial to the maintenance of public order, the people residing in the said areas, businessmen are living under constant show of fear. Due to your such habitual criminal activities, the lives and properties of the people in the aforesaid areas are in danger."

4. The recent incidents showing intensified terrorising criminal activities on the part of the detenu and his associates, were stated in detail in paragraphs 4(a), 4(a)(i) and 4(a)(ii). All the incidents referred to had taken place between March and April, 1999.

5. Relevant portions of paragraphs 4(b), 4(b)(i), and 4(b)(ii) on which much stress has been laid by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant read as follows :

"4(b) Confidential inquiries made into your activities disclosed that, you have been indulging in criminal activities persistently and have victimised number of people in the areas of Kherwadi, Teen Bungalow, Chamdewandi, J.P. Road, Khar (East) and adjoining areas in the jurisdiction of Nirmal Nagar Police Station in Brihan Mumbai. However, the witnesses including the victims are mortally afraid of you to complain and to make statements against you openly. On the assurance of anonymity and that they would not be called upon to depose in the Court of Law or any other open forum to make statements against you only then the following witnesses expressed their willingness to make their statements and thus their statements are recorded "IN CAMERA". The gist of their statements is as under :-

4(b)(i) Witness "A" is having a bakery and residing at Kherwadi Road.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2000 Supreme(SC) 1163

IMPORTANT POINTStatements of persons/witnesses recorded in-camera can form the basis of detention order under Section 3 of the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords, Bootleggers, Drug Offenders and Dangerous Persons Act.

IMPORTANT POINT
Statements of persons/witnesses recorded in-camera can form the basis of detention order under Section 3 of the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords, Bootleggers, Drug Offenders and Dangerous Persons Act.