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_.

सोमवार, 11 जुलाई 2022

Nagpur

DETENTION ORDER UNDER MPDA ACT QUASHED AND SET ASIDE BY HC


Nagpur 

By Zafar Khan 

Division bench comprising of SB Shukre  and GA Sanap JJ have quashed and set aside order dated 9-9-2021  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 Prashant 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.


While quashing the order,the court observed as under-In the present case, the material available on record indicated that in the two crimes, Crime No.244/2021 registered on 9.6.2021 and Crime No.257/2021, registered on 21.6.2021, the Investigating Officer did not think it fit to arrest the petitioner and was satisfied that issuance of a notice under Section 41 of the Code of Criminal Procedure would be sufficient to ensure that the petitioner does not indulge in any further criminal activity and also abides by law.  This was inspite of the fact that there were two statements of confidential witnesses recorded in camera on 11.6.2021.   These statements were considered by the detaining authority as sufficient for reaching subjective satisfaction that criminal activities of the petitioner were disturbing the public order, forgetting that the petitioner was not arrested and was merely allowed to walk away upon getting notice under Section 41 of the Criminal Procedure Code in a crime which was registered on 21.6.2021 (Crime No.244/2021) after the statements of confidential witnesses ‘A’ and ‘B’ were recorded on 11.6.2021. 5. Apart from what is stated above, the statement of witness ‘A’ shows that he had filed a complaint at Police Station Babhulgaon on 23.5.2021 against the petitioner when the petitioner had threatened to kill him but, it appears that no crime was registered against the petitioner at Police Station Babhulgaon. This fact has not been considered in any manner by the detaining authority although, it was very much present on record. Then, statement of witness ‘B’ does not refer to any particular incident nor does it mention in any period of time when any incident worth taking cognizance took place.   The statement is only in general terms.


6. Such being the nature of statements of witnesses ‘A’ and ‘B’, we do not think and that they could have been considered as providing any relevant material for the detaining authority to reach its subjective satisfaction in the matter.   Thus, we find that this is a case of absence of relevant material and non-consideration of relevant material by the detaining authority in reaching it’s subjective satisfaction thereby vitiating the impugned order.Adv Mir Nagman Ali appeared for Prashant Datar.