Bombay High Court
Pavan Ishwarlal Jaiswal vs The State Of Maharashtra And Others on 16 September, 2021
Author: N. B. Suryawanshi
Bench: Sunil P. Deshmukh, N. B. Suryawanshi
1 J WP 554-2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 554 OF 2021
Pavan s/o Ishwarlal Jaiswal,
Age : 23 years, Occu.: Student,
R/o.: 11th Scheme, Plot No. B 30/1,
Shivajinagar, Garkheda Parisar,
Aurangabad. ... PETITIONER
VERSUS
1. The State of Maharashtra
Through Deputy Secretary,
Home Department Mantralaya,
Mumbai-32.
2. The State of Maharashtra,
Through Commissioner of Police,
Aurangabad.
3. The State of Maharashtra,
Through Superintendent
Central Jail Aurangabad. ... RESPONDENTS
....
Advocate for the Petitioner : Mr. Rupesh Jaiswal
APP for the Respondents : Mr. S. J. Salgare
....
CORAM: SUNIL P. DESHMUKH &
N. B. SURYAWANSHI, JJ.
DATE : 16/09/2021.
JUDGMENT :(PER : N. B. SURYAWANSHI, J.) :
::: Uploaded on - 24/09/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 13/10/2021 01:10:09 :::
2 J WP 554-2021
1. This petition challenges the order dated 19/10/2020 passed by the Commissioner of Police, Aurangabad thereby detaining the petitioner under Section 3 of Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords, Bootleggers, Drug-Ofenders, Dangerous Persons, Video Pirates, Sand Smugglers and Persons Engaged in Black Marketing of Essential Commodities Act, 1981 (for short 'MPDA Act').
2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of the parties, petition is taken up for fnal hearing at the admission stage.
3. The petitioner challenges the impugned order on following grounds :
i) The detaining authority has considered irrelevant material while passing the impugned order;
ii) Relevant material was not considered by the detaining authority;
iii) The detaining authority failed to consider that the detenue is falsely implicated in the FIR as he is follower and worker of a particular political party; ::: Uploaded on - 24/09/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 13/10/2021 01:10:09 :::
3 J WP 554-2021
iv) The detenue is not accused of any ofence afecting public order. At the most the ofences registered against the petitioner can be termed as afecting law and order;
v) The detaining authority has failed to verify in-camera statements
vi) There is no satisfaction recorded by the detaining authority that witnesses are not coming forward to depose against the detenue.
4. In support of above grounds, the learned advocate for the detenue strenuously urged that since the detaining authority has mentioned in the impugned order that it has carefully gone through the material placed before it and from the facts and record placed before the detaining authority, it came to the conclusion that detention of the petitioner is necessary, this clearly indicates that the ofences registered against the detenue in the year 2015, 2016, 2018, 2020 and externment proceedings referred in the detention order were also taken into consideration. Therefore, though it is mentioned in the impugned order that the detaining authority relied upon four recent ofences and two in- camera statements, the authority has considered irrelevant material which has vitiated the impugned order. The learned advocate further submitted that the detaining authority has failed ::: Uploaded on - 24/09/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 13/10/2021 01:10:09 ::: 4 J WP 554-2021 to consider the relevant material that is the ofences registered against the detenue are politically motivated in the ofence of Crime No. 149 of 2020 registered with Pundliknagar Police Station, Aurangabad for the ofences punishable under Section 325 of IPC, the MLC report shows that while jogging the injured has received the injury. Though the said incident occurred on 02/06/2020, the FIR was belatedly lodged on 08/06/2020. In crime No. 309 of 2020 registered with Pundliknagar Police Station under section 365, 324 of IPC, the injured has stated that he received the injury from unknown person which is refected in the MLC report. According to the learned advocate, the petitioner is therefore, falsely implicated in both these ofences. However, this aspect is ignored by the detaining authority.
5. He further urged that as per the in-camera statement of witness 'B' which is relied upon by the detaining authority, the incident occurred in the last week of September. However, at that point of time the detenue was in jail in connection with Crime No. 221 of 2020 registered with Pundliknagar Police Station, Aurangabad for ofences punishable under Section 436 & 452 of IPC. This relevant aspect is ignored by the detaining authority. Further submission is that even assuming without admitting anything on record, that ofences registered against the detenue ::: Uploaded on - 24/09/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 13/10/2021 01:10:09 ::: 5 J WP 554-2021 can at the most said to be afecting law and order and not afecting public order. Thus, the requirement of Section 3 of the MPDA Act is not satisfed and on this count also the impugned order is liable to be quashed and set aside. According to the learned advocate the in-camera statements are not verifed by the detaining authority which vitiates the impugned order. He further submits that though it is mentioned in the impugned order that witnesses are not willing to come forward to give statements against the detenue, the detaining authority has failed to satisfy itself that witnesses are afraid to come forward to give statements against the petitioner. According to him, the detaining authority has in verbatim reproduced the in-camera statements of the witnesses, but has failed to record its satisfaction in that behalf. He, therefore, states that the impugned order is liable to be quashed and set aside.
6. The learned advocate for the petitioner in support of his submission, placed reliance on following citations :
i) Pawan Tukaram Kudale vs. The Commissioner of Police, Pune and others, 2019 ALL M R (Cri) 503;
ii) Hanuman Rajaram Mhatre vs. The Commissioner of Police, Thane and others, 2019 ALL M R (Cri) 492;
iii) Ganesh alias Gajaraj Sainath Patil vs. State of Maharashtra and others, 2021 ALL MR (Cri) 2585 and ::: Uploaded on - 24/09/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 13/10/2021 01:10:09 ::: 6 J WP 554-2021
iv) Ram Manohar Lohia vs. The State of Bihar and another, 1965 ALL MR Online 375 (S.C.) ;
v) Gokul Sahabrao Sabale vs. The Commissioner of Police, Pune and others, 2017 ALL MR (Cri) 2051;
vi) Deepak s/o Dattu Suryawanshi vs. The Commissioner of Police, Pune City and others, 2017 ALL MR (Cri) 416;
7. To counter the submissions, the learned APP submitted that except four ofences and two in-camera statements, the detaining authority has not relied upon any other material while passing the impugned order. The submission of the detenue that since record is considered, it means that previous ofences and externment proceedings of him were considered, is misconceived. By pointing out the doctor's statement in CR No. 149 of 2020 he submitted that injured Rahul was unconscious when he was admitted by his father in the hospital, who gave the history to the doctor. The father had no knowledge as to who assaulted the injured. By pointing out the statement of injured Rahul's brother he submitted that it was the detenue who had assaulted injured. He further submitted that there is no substance in the contention of the detenue that the ofences registered against him are politically motivated. He specifcally urged that earlier ofences registered against the detenue were not considered by the detaining authority. By placing reliance in the afdavit fled by ::: Uploaded on - 24/09/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 13/10/2021 01:10:09 ::: 7 J WP 554-2021 the detaining authority, the learned APP further submitted that the detaining authority has recorded its satisfaction in the impugned order. There was a live-link between the ofences committed by the detenue and passing of the detention order.
8. In support of his arguments, the learned APP relied on decisions in the following citations :
i) T. Devaki vs. Government of Tamil nadu and others (1990) 2 SCC 456;
ii) Secretary to Government of Tamil Nadu Public (Law and Order) Revenue Department and another vs. Kamala and another, (2019) 5 SCC 322;
iii) Mohammed Asif vs. The Commissioner of Police, Mumbai and others, MANU/MH/1425/2016;
iv) Santosh vs. The State of Maharashtra and others, MANU/MH/0270/2013;
v) Hemlata Kantilal Shah vs. State of Maharashtra and others, MANU/SC/0496/1981;
vi) Magar s/o Pansingh Pimple vs. State of Maharashtra and others, 2005 (12) LJSOFT 104;
vii) Manoj @ Sonya s/o Ramdas Ghule vs. The Commissioner of Police, Pune and others, 2018 ALL MR (Cri) 608,
viii) Kanuji S. Zala vs. State of Gujarat and others, AIR 1999 SC 2269;
ix) Abdul Sathar Ibrahim Manik and others vs. Union of India (UOI) and others, AIR 1991 SC 2261;::: Uploaded on - 24/09/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 13/10/2021 01:10:09 :::
8 J WP 554-2021
x) Sahib Singh Dugal vs. Union of India (UOI), AIR 1966 SC 340;
xi) Smt. Varsha Shyam Amlani vs. State of Maharashtra and others, 2006(2) Mh.L.J. (Cri) 859;
xii) Indrajit Goswami vs. R. H. Mendonca, Commissioner of Police and others, 1999 Cr.L.J. 4332;
xiii) Ashok Kumar vs. Delhi Administration, 1982 AIR (SC) 1143;
xiv) Rajendrakumar natvarial Shah vs. State of Gujarat and others, AIR 1988 SC 1255;
xv) The Commissioner of Police and others vs. C. Anita, AIR 2004 SC 4423;
xvi) Union of India (UOI) and others vs. Chaya Ghoshal and others, AIR 2005 SC 428;
xvii) Vijay Dattaram Nakashe vs. A. N. Roy and others, MANU/MH/0927/2004;
xviii) Adil Chaus vs. The Commissioner of Police, Aurangabad and others, 2012 Bom.CR (Cri) 30; xix) Nand Kishore vs. Commissioner of Police, 1982 (Cri) LJ 1439;
xx) Union of India (UOI) and others vs. Muneesh Suneja, AIR 2001 SC 854;
xxi) L.M.S. Ummu Saleema vs. B. B. Gujaral and others, AIR 1981 SC 1191;
xxii) Sushil Singh vs. District Magistrate and others, 2000(Cri) LJ 2812 and xxiii) State of Uttar Pradesh vs. Jairam and others, AIR 1982SC 942.
::: Uploaded on - 24/09/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 13/10/2021 01:10:09 :::
9 J WP 554-2021
9. The learned APP also relied upon the decision in Criminal Writ Petition No. 301 of 2021 and Criminal Writ Petition No. 242 of 2021 passed by this Court at Aurangabad.
10. Heard the learned advocate for the detenue and the learned APP at length. We have perused the grounds raised in the petition and record made available to us.
11. It emerges from the record that taking into consideration twelve serious ofences registered at Mukundwadi Police Station, Jawaharnagar Police Station, Pundliknagar Police Station and one externment proceeding by Pundliknagar Police Station against the detenue, Assistant Police Inspector conducted a confdential enquiry and proposal dated 10/10/2020 was forwarded for taking action against detenue under Section 3(1) of the MPDA Act. On going through the said proposal along with the documents appended thereto, the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Osmanpura Division, Aurangabad forwarded it to Deputy Commissioner of Police, Zone-2, Aurangabad on 11/10/2020. The Deputy Commissioner, conducted verifcation of confdential witnesses A and B and submitted the report to detaining authority on 12/10/2020. The detaining authority on going through the report was satisfed that the facts given in the statements and the ::: Uploaded on - 24/09/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 13/10/2021 01:10:09 ::: 10 J WP 554-2021 apprehension expressed by the witnesses A and B was true and reasonable. Considering the material, the detaining authority came to a conclusion that the detenue is a dangerous person and has committed serious ofences punishable under Chapter XVI and XVII of IPC and Chaapter V of the Arms Act. The detenue had committed serious ofences like causing hurt by dangerous weapons, voluntarily causing grievous hurt, voluntarily causing hurt while committing robbery, decoity, assault to a woman with intent to outrage her modesy, house trespass, mischief by fre, kidnapping, rioting violation of externment order, illegal possession of arms, insult intended to provoke breach of the peace, criminal intimidation etc. Due to the terror created by the detenue people residing within the jurisdiction of Pundliknagar Police Station and adjoining areas were under constant fear and terror. The criminal activities of the detenue were therefore, prejudicial to the maintenance of public order in the area of Pundliknagar and Jawaharnagar Police Station. The detaining authority was therefore subjectively satisfed that if the detenue is not prevented, he is likely to further indulge in dangerous criminal activities, which would be prejudicial to the maintenance of public order in future. Therefore, the impugned order was passed.
::: Uploaded on - 24/09/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 13/10/2021 01:10:09 :::
11 J WP 554-2021
12. The impugned order was served on detenue on 19/10/2020 and the grounds of detention and other relevant papers translated in Marathi were served on 21/10/2020. On the same day, the proposal was forwarded to the Home Department, Government of Maharashtra, for approval under Section 3(3) of MPDA Act. The detention order was approved by the Home Department, State Government on 23/10/2020. After hearing the detenue, the Advisory Board forwarded its opinion to the State Government. Vide order dated 17/11/2020 the detention order was confrmed by the State Government.
13. We fnd no substance in the ground of the detenue that irrelevant material was considered while passing the impugned order. Admittedly, the detaining authority has relied upon four ofences committed by the detenue in the recent past i.e. i) CR No. 149 of 2020, registered with Pundliknagar Police Station for the ofences punishable under Section 325, 323, read with 34 of IPC dated 08/06/2020 ii) CR Nol. 221 of 2020, registered at Pundliknagar Police Station, for the ofences punishable under Sections 143, 144, 147, 148, 149, 452, 436, 504 and 506 of IPC dated 19/07/2020 iii) CR No. 309 of 2020, registered at Pundliknagar Police Station, for the ofences punishable under Sections 365, 336, 324, 504 read with 34 of IPC dated 06/10/2020 ::: Uploaded on - 24/09/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 13/10/2021 01:10:09 ::: 12 J WP 554-2021 and iv) CR No. 314 of 2020, registered at Pundlikngar Police Station for the ofence punishable under Section 142 of Maharashtra Police Act, 1951, dated 09/10/2020.
14. The detaining authority has further relied upon in-camera statements of witnesses A and B to come to conclusion that the detenue is a dangerous person as defned in Section 2B-1 of MPDA Act. Merely because the detaining authority has referred to in the order that it has gone through the material placed before it and has considered the record and on the relevant documents that by itself does not in any manner indicate that the detaining authority has taken into consideration and relied upon the previous ofences registered against the detenue in year 2015 on wards. Those ofences though are referred to in the detention order, they are not relied upon by the detaining authority while passing the detention order. Therefore, we are unable to accept the contention of the detenue that irrelevant material was considered by the detaining authority.
15. The detaining authority has taken into consideration the four serious ofences registered against the detenue on 08/06/2020, 20/07/2020, 06/10/2020, which fall under Chapters XVI and XVII of the IPC. Pursuant to the registration of these ofences, iron rod, ::: Uploaded on - 24/09/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 13/10/2021 01:10:09 ::: 13 J WP 554-2021 sword, wooden foot of bed which were used during commission of the ofences, were recovered at the instance of the detenue. The detenue had entered Garkheda Parisar, Aurangabad in violation of externment order passed against him and hence, he was arrested and an ofence was registered against him.
16. In-camera statements of witnesses A and B further revealed that the detenue was extorting money from them as well as from the people of the locality. There was, therefore, in our opinion sufcient material to indicate that the detenue is a dangerous person and the impugned order of detention against him was justifed in the facts of the present case.
17. We do not fnd any force in the arguments of the detenue that relevant material appearing in the record of CR No. 149 of 2020 and CR No. 309 of 2020 was ignored by the detaining authority while passing the impugned order.
18. In CR No. 149 of 2020, the doctor's statement is recorded. It shows that the injured was admitted by his father in unconscious condition on 02/06/2020 at 5.00 a.m. in the morning. While admitting he stated that his son received the injures while jogging. However, the doctor while checking the injuries, found ::: Uploaded on - 24/09/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 13/10/2021 01:10:09 ::: 14 J WP 554-2021 those injuries were not possible by a fall and those were received in an incident hence forwarded the MLC to the Jawaharnagar Police Station. Thereafter, on 05/06/2020, when the injured regained his conscious, his statement was recorded and accordingly the crime was registered. Since the injured after regaining consciousness, has disclosed that the detenue is the author of the injuries, we fnd no substance in the argument of the learned advocate for the detenue that MLC certifcate records injuries were sufered during jogging and FIR was belatedly lodged.
19. So far as Crime No. 309 of 2020 is concerned, the injured in this case was admitted by his father, who gave history that unknown person assaulted the injured. However, the statement of the witnesses accompanying the injured at the time of incident specifcally disclosed that at the time of incident the injured was taken away by the detenue and his associates in a car. Thereafter, on the next day they came to know that the injured was admitted in Manik Hospital. When they met to injured, the injured disclosed them that the detenue took him on the terrace of his house and assaulted him with iron pipe and broken foot of cot. Therefore, we are unable to accept the argument of the ::: Uploaded on - 24/09/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 13/10/2021 01:10:09 ::: 15 J WP 554-2021 detenue that relevant material was ignored by the detaining authority and therefore, the impugned order is vitiated.
20. We fnd no substance in the ground raised by the detenue that he was falsely implicated and the detaining authority has ignored the fact that when the witness 'A' was threatened and an amount was extorted from him, at that time the detenue was in custody. The learned APP has placed on record copy of release order passed in favour of the detenue, according to which the detenue was released from jail on 30 th September, 2020 at 17.00 to 18.00 hours. There is no specifc date given in the statement of witness 'A' for maintaining the confdentiality. This situation weighs against the detenue as immediately after his release on bail, the detenue has extorted amount from witness 'A' and threatened him. Therefore, this situation aspect goes against the detenue.
21. We are also unable to accept the argument of the detenue that the ofences registered against the detenue are at the most can be said to afect law and order and not public order. Serious ofences which are punishable under Chapter XVI and XVII of IPC are registered against the detenue. The detenue was found wandering in Garkheda area in violation of the externment order ::: Uploaded on - 24/09/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 13/10/2021 01:10:09 ::: 16 J WP 554-2021 passed against him for which ofence at CR NO. 314 of 2020 under Section 142 of Maharashtra Police Act, 1951 is registered against the detenue. The in-camera statements of witneses A and B further revealed that the detenue is a dangerous person and has posed a threat to public order. All these ofences and activities of the detenue are afecting public order and therefore, the detaining authority was justifed in passing the impugned order.
22. We also do not fnd substance in the argument of the detenue that the detaining authority has not verifed the in- camera statements of the witnesses A and B. Perusal of the record indicates that the in-camera statements of witnesses A and B were verifed by the detaining authority and subjective satisfaction is recorded by the detaining authority on the basis of record that the witnesses were not willing to come forward to give statements against the detenue. The detaining authority, is therefore, justifed in mentioning in the impugned order that action taken against the detenue under the normal law was found to be insufcient and inefective to deter him from indulging in criminal activities prejudicial to the maintenance of public order and the public was under constant shadow of fear of detenue and his associates. The criminal activities of detenue were disturbing ::: Uploaded on - 24/09/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 13/10/2021 01:10:09 ::: 17 J WP 554-2021 the normal tempo of life of citizens of the said areas mentioned in the grounds of detention. The detenue was, therefore, acting in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order and therefore, the detention order is passed. We are satisfed that the impugned order clearly refects subjective satisfaction recorded by the detaining authority. The detaining authority was justifed in passing the impugned order in the present case.
23. In Hemlata Kantilal Shah (supra), wherein the the Apex Court held that the past conduct and antecedents history of a person can appropriately be taken into consideration while making the detention order and High Court or Supreme Court does not sit in appeal while considering challenge to the preventive detention orders. It is to be seen whether the formalities enjoined by Article 22(5) have been complied with by the detaining authority. If the formalities are complied with, the court cannot examine the material before it and fnd that the detaining authority should not have been satisfed on the material before it and detained the detenue under the Preventive Detention Act, for, that is the function of an appellate Court.
24. In Sahib Singh Dugal (supra) the Apex Court held that "the conduct of the petitioner before period of three months is ::: Uploaded on - 24/09/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 13/10/2021 01:10:09 ::: 18 J WP 554-2021 proximate enough to justify the order of detention. In that case the petitioner was in jail for last three months and the detention was made in light of the evidence about past activities of the petitioner therein. It is held that :
" But these past activities should ordinarily be proximate in point of time in order to justify the order of detention. IN the present cases the petitioners had been in jail for only three months before the order of detention was passed. It cannot be said that the conduct of the petitioners before this period of three months is not proximate enough to justify an order of detention based on that conduct. As a matter of fact, the afdavit on behalf of the Government of India is that the material in respect of the activities of the petitioners ranged over a period of two years before the date of detention and that was taken into account to come to the conclusion whether the detention under the Rules was justifed or not".
25. In Smt. Varsha Shyam Amlani (supra) this court held that "for passing order of detention it is not necessary that there should be multiplicity of grounds for making or sustaining an order of detention. A single act can be a basis of of detention and the number of acts for such detention is not very material". ::: Uploaded on - 24/09/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 13/10/2021 01:10:09 :::
19 J WP 554-2021
26. In Santosh (supra) this court observed that "reference to earlier cases lodged against petitioner was by way of preamble and did not form ground for satisfaction of the detaining authority. It is also held that "law is settled that if in-camera statement discloses verifcation about truthfulness of such statement and identity of person concerned to satisfaction of ofcer verifying statement, no challenge could be entertained on the ground that verifcation was defective".
27. In Pawan Tukaram Kudale (supra) this court in the facts of that case came to the conclusion that the detention order was unsustainable, particularly relying on the afdavit of the detaining authority that the narration in the grounds of detention that there were six ofences shown in the chart were mentioned to show that the detenue's continuous activities and copies of FIRs, charge-sheet, arrest forms and relevant documents of preventive action were enclosed and supplied to the detenue so as to make efective representation. The detaining authority also admitted in its afdavit that all the basic facts and materials in the grounds were taken into consideration in making the order. This court, therefore, set aside the detention order.
::: Uploaded on - 24/09/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 13/10/2021 01:10:09 :::
20 J WP 554-2021
28. In the instant case, the detention authority has relied only four recent crimes and two in-camera statements, which is also stated in the afdavit fled by the detaining authority and therefore, the ratio in that judgment would not support the case of the detenue.
29. In Hanuman Rajaram Mhatre (supra) this court in the facts of that case was of the view that extraneous and irrelevant material resulted in the formation of the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority. Hence, allowed the petition. Such are not the facts of the present case.
30. Ganesh alias Gajaraj Sainath Patil (supra) the question before this Court was whether a single criminal proceeding registered for ofences punishable under Sections 307, 341, 323, 504, 506, 143, 147, 148, 149 of IPC along with two in-camera statements, would be sufcient for the detaining authority to reach its conclusion that the petitioner is a "dangerous person". This Court on fnding that the satisfaction arrived by the detaining authority was based on irrelevant or invalid grounds and as the detention ground was based on one solitary crime registered and two in-camera statements, allowed the petition. In the present case, there are four serious crimes and two in-camera statements ::: Uploaded on - 24/09/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 13/10/2021 01:10:09 ::: 21 J WP 554-2021 against the detenue. Hence, this ruling would not help the detenue.
31. Ram Manohar Lohia (supra) was case of detention under Defence of India Act, in which Constitution Bench of Apex Court held that vast powers in the public interest are granted but under strict conditions, which should not be colourably exercised. On the point of maintenance of law and order and public order, it is held that :
"The expression 'maintenance of law and order' is not used ini Cl. (1) or R. 30. The corresponding expression used therein is 'maintenance of public order'. The two expressions are not much diferent. The expression 'public order' has been construed by this court in a few cases, the latest of them being (1960)2 SCR 821: (AIR 1960 SC 633), wherein it was said at p. 839:
"Public order' is synonymous with public safety and tranquility; it is the absence of disorder involving breaches of disorder involving breaches of local signifcances in contradiction to national upheavals, such as revolution, civil strife, war, afecting the security of the State".
The ratio in this ruling is distinguishable on facts of the instant case, which are narrated in forgoing paras. ::: Uploaded on - 24/09/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 13/10/2021 01:10:09 :::
22 J WP 554-2021
32. In Gokul Sahabrao Sabale (supra) this court set aside the detention order as the detaining authority failed to verify the truthfulness of the incident stated by the witnesses in in-camera statements. We have already noted above that the detaining authority has duly verifed the in-camera statements and has rightly reached to a conclusion that the detenue is a dangerous person.
33. In Deepak s/o Dattu Suryawanshi (supra) this court set aside the detention order as the acquittal order passed in favour of the detenue for the ofence punishable under Section 399 of IPC was not placed on record before the detaining authority but the extraneous material was placed on record. This ruling is distinguishable on the facts of the present case and does not support the case of the detenue.
34. We are convinced that in the present case there was credible material before the detaining authority on the basis of which a reasonable inference has been drawn in respect of adverse efect on the maintenance of public order defned under MPDA Act. It is settled legal position that it is not for the court to decide whether the material was sufcient or not. As already stated earlier in this case the detaining authority has specifcally ::: Uploaded on - 24/09/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 13/10/2021 01:10:09 ::: 23 J WP 554-2021 mentioned in the grounds that if the detenue is not prevented is likely to further indulge in to dangerous criminal activities prejudicial to the maintenance of public order in future. We, therefore, fnd no merit in the challenge raised by the detenue in the present case.
35. In the instant case we fnd that the mandate of 22(5) has been complied with in a meaningful manner. The petitioner was provided with opportunity to make representation on the basis of material supplied to him. The detaining authority was satisfed on going through the material placed before it that the detenue was a dangerous person and activities of the detenue were disturbing the public order. The subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority is refected in the impugned order. We, therefore, do not fnd any merit in the challenge raised by the detenue to the impugned order. The petition sans merit, is therefore, dismissed with no order as to costs. Rule discharged.
(N. B. SURYAWANSHI, J.) ( SUNIL P. DESHMUKH, J. ) V.S. Maind/ ::: Uploaded on - 24/09/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 13/10/2021 01:10:09 :::