THE CURRENT SCENARIO

add

BREAKING

BSE-SENSEX:: 59,015.89 −125.27 (0.21%) :: :: NSE :: Nifty:: 17,585.15 −44.35 (0.25%)_ ::US$_:: 73.55 Indian Rupee_.

रविवार, 17 जुलाई 2022

Nagpur Zafar Khan

DETENTION ORDER UNDER MPDA ACT QUASHED AND SET ASIDE BY HC


Nagpur Zafar Khan✍️

Division bench comprising of SB Shukre  and GA Sanap JJ have quashed and set aside order dated 30th september 2021  passed by District Collector, Yavatmal detaining Prashant Bharat Datar under sec 12 (1) of Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords, Bootleggers, Drug offenders, Dangerous persons and Video Pirates Act, 1981.There were many offences under Bombay Prohibition Act registered against Vilas Pawar thus he was termed as bootlegger.



The detention order was subsequently confirmed by the Advisory Board, Mumbai  directing detention of the for a period of 1 year. The detention order was challenged in Writ Petition before Bombay High Court, Nagpur bench on the ground that, there was no material before the detaining authority to arrive at conclusion that, Prashant Datar was bootlegger and various irrelevant material was placed before the detaining authority while passing the detention order.


The court held that, The crimes which were considered were registered on 08 march 2021 and 22nd may 2021 at Pandharkawada Police Station, Yavatmal under Section 65(F) and 65 (E) of the said Act, respectively. 5. The preventive action taken under Section 93 of the said Act where-under a final bond for keeping peace was taken from the petitioner had concluded on 18.03.2021. The statements of two confidential witnesses were recorded on 01.07.2021 and 02.07.2021. The statements recorded on 01.07.2021 referred to an incident involving criminal activity of the petitioner, which had occurred in the month of May 2021, similarly the statement dated 02.07.2021 had referred to another incident of criminal activity of the petitioner, which had occurred in the month of March 2021. 


6. The impugned detention order in the present case has been passed on 30.09.2021. It is clear that the impugned detention order had no live link with the criminal activities of the petitioner, which were considered by the detaining authority. The criminal activity involved in two crimes related to dates of 07.04.2021 and 28.05.2021. The preventive action taken against the petitioner under Section 93 of the said Act related to an action taken on 18.03.2021. The incidents of criminal activity mentioned in the statements of confidential witnesses referred to what happened in the months of March2021 and May-2021 respectively. The last of criminal activity of the petitioner was vide Crime no.558 of 2021 registered on 22.05.2021. In between the last of the recorded criminal activity of the petitioner and the date on which, preventive detention order was passed, there is no criminal activity attributed to the petitioner. If this is so, the preventive detention order could not have been passed. After all, the necessity for preventively detaining a person arises, only when there is a continuous series of a criminal activity creating a reasonable belief that if not controlled, it will lead to disturbance of public order, and therefore, this Court in its several judgments has held that there must be existing a live link between the last of the criminal activity and the date on which, the detaining order was passed so that the object of preventive detention is well served. This is not the case here and therefore on this ground alone, we are of the view that the impugned order deserves to be quashed and set aside. 7. Apart from what is stated above, in two crimes registered against the petitioner, the petitioner was not arrested and was clearly given an intimation under Section 41(1)(a) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, thereby creating an impression that the Investigating Officer did not consider the petitioner as so dangerous a criminal as would warrant his arrest in the crimes registered against him, which were non bailable. This is important aspect of the matter which has not been taken into consideration by the detaining authority.Adv Mir Nagman Ali appeared for Vilas Kisan Pawar.