Supreme Court - Daily Orders
Ramesh Balu Chavan vs The Commissioner Of Police Solapur on 7 August, 2018
Bench: R. Banumathi, S. Abdul Nazeer
1
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
Criminal Appeal No(s). 1472 OF 2017
RAMESH BALU CHAVAN Appellant(s)
VERSUS
THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, SOLAPUR & ORS. Respondent(s)
O R D E R
The detention order passed against the appellant under Section 3(2) 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 (MPDA Act, for short) was affirmed by the High Court by the impugned order, challenging which the appellant has preferred this appeal.
Before the High Court the appellant has, inter alia, raised the contention that the grounds of detention are vague and that the relevant materials were not placed before the detaining Authority and, therefore, there was no sufficient ground for the detention of the appellant under MPDA Act.
By considering the grounds pointed out in the order of the detention and considering the submissions raised on behalf of the appellant, the High Court held that there was sufficient Signature Not Verified ground for detention of the appellant-accused and dismissed Digitally signed by MAHABIR SINGH Date: 2018.08.11 11:31:17 IST Reason: Criminal Writ Petition NO.4403 of 2016 affirming the order of detention.
2We have heard Mr. Sudhanshu S. Choudhari, learned counsel appearing for the appellant. Learned counsel reiterated the same contention which was raised before the High Court that the grounds for detention are vague. Learned counsel has placed reliance upon the judgment of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay in Pramod @ Laba Bhalchandra Ingle v. Commissioner of Police, Solapur dated 6th February, 2017 in Writ Petition NO.3345 of 2016.
We have heard Ms. Deep M. Kulkarni, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-State.
Insofar as the activities of the appellant being prejudicial to the maintenance of public order is concerned, the High Court has pointed out the chemical analysis report in two cases i.e. C.R. NO(s).245/2016 and 257/2016 which showed that the sample contained Ethyl alcohol which is injurious to human body; heavy consumption of Ethyl alcohol can lead to death depending upon the condition and age of a person. Since the appellant was involved in more than one case under Bombay Prohibition Act the High Court, based on the materials placed before the Detaining Authority, has arrived at the subjective satisfaction that the appellant is a bootlegger. Insofar as contention of learned counsel of the appellant is concerned that the grounds of detention are vague, we are unable to countenance the submission. The High Court in its judgment has referred the “in camera statement of witness ‘A’ “ showing that the appellant came to the house of the said witness and demanded money from him for liquor he had taken on 3 credit from the detenu. When the younger daughter of Witness ‘A’ tried to help the witness, the appellant had shown her the knife and asked for sexual favour from her. In camera Witness ‘B’ has also stated that the detenu along with 3-4 persons came to neighbours demanding money by showing knife. It cannot be said that the grounds of detention are vague, as submitted by learned counsel for the appellant. Be it noted that the ground of detention has been elaborated in order dated 22 nd November, 2016, of the Commissioner of Police, which is annexed as Annexure P-3 along with this appeal. Based on the statement of “in camera Witness ‘A’ “, the High Court has distinguished the case of the appellant from Pramod alias Laba Bhalchandra Ingle (supra). We do not find any good ground to take a view different from the one taken by the High Court. The appeal is accordingly dismissed.
The appellant shall surrender himself to serve the remaining period of detention.
..........................J. (R. BANUMATHI) ..........................J. (S. ABDUL NAZEER) NEW DELHI, AUGUST 7, 2018.
4
ITEM NO.103 COURT NO.12 SECTION II-A
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Criminal Appeal No(s). 1472 OF 2017
RAMESH BALU CHAVAN Appellant(s)
VERSUS
THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, SOLAPUR & ORS. Respondent(s)
Date : 07-08-2018 This appeal was called on for hearing today. CORAM :
HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE R. BANUMATHI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. ABDUL NAZEER For Appellant(s) Mr. Sudhanshu S. Choudhari, AOR For Respondent(s) Ms. Deepa M. Kulkarni,Adv.
Mr. Nishant Ramakantrao Katneshwarkar, AOR UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R In terms of the signed order, the appeal is dismissed and the appellant is directed to surrender himself to serve the remaining period of detention.
Pending applications, if any, shall also stand disposed of.
(MAHABIR SINGH) (PARVEEN KUMARI PASRICHA)
COURT MASTER BRANCH OFFICER
(Signed order is placed on the file)