Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

2. Facts leading to this petition are that on the proposal of detention by police station Dindrud dated 31.8.2020, the District Magistrate Beed passed order of detention under Section 3 of 'the MPDA Act' and communicated the same to the petitioner under Section 8 of 'the MPDA Act'.

3. In the said notice, the District Magistrate, Beed (Respondent No. 2) has stated that the petitioner is a weapon-wielding dangerous recidivist of violent nature indulging in criminal activities that foster terror in the society. Respondent No. 2 has further stated in the notice that the petitioner has become perpetual danger to the lives and properties of people residing in the vicinity and carrying out their daily activities and vocations in the jurisdiction of Dindrud Police Station. It is further alleged that the petitioner manufactures sells and possesses illicit liquor. He has created terror in the locality in which he resides. He has engaged himself in violent criminal activities and also threatened the people not to complain against him. The notice further 3 criwp1191.20 states that as many as 9 offences have been registered against the petitioner under Section 65 (e) and (f) of the Maharashtra Prohibition Act. All these offences are pending in the Court. The list of the offences pending against the petitioner is as under :

7. After passing of the order dated 8.9.2020, the petitioner was served with the order on 8.9.2020 itself. The committal order was passed on the same date and the petitioner was detained in Harsul Jail, Aurangabad on the even date. A proposal to the State Government 5 criwp1191.20 was made for the approval of detention of the petitioner under Section 3 (3) of 'the MPDA Act', vide letter dated 16 th September,2020. The State Government after receipt of opinion of the Advisory Board on 16.09.2020 under 'the MPDA Act', confirmed the detention order of the petitioner on 20/10/2020 and the petitioner has been detained for a period of one year.

(d). It is stated therein that the activities of the detenu are not prejudicial to the public order and there is no effect of the consumption of country made liquor like death of people or hospitalization or bankruptcy. It, therefore, cannot be held that the consumption of the seized contraband country made liquor is injurious to health. Mr. Tripathi has only pressed the first part of ground (d) wherein the contention is raised that the activities of the detenu are not prejudicial to the public order. In order to detain a person under the MPDA Act as a bootlegger, it must be established in the first instance that he is a bootlegger. As per the definition of bootlegger given in the MPDA Act, "bootlegger" means a person, who distils, manufactures, stores, transports, imports, exports, sells or distributes any liquor, intoxicating drug or other intoxicants in contravention of any provisions of the Maharashtra Prohibition Act (Act No. XXV of 1949) and the rules and orders made thereunder, or of any other law for the time being in force or who knowingly spends or applies any money or supplies any animal, vehicle, vessel or other conveyance or any receptacles or any other material whatsoever in furtherance or support of the doing any of the above mentioned things by or through any other person, or who abets in any other manner the doing of any such thing. The detenu certainly falls within this category because the facts relating to C.R. Nos. 245/2016 and 257/2016 show that the detenu was transporting and selling liquor. After going through Section 2 of the MPDA Act, we are of the view that a 'bootlegger' can be detained under the provisions of the MPDA Act not only in case he deals with any liquor which as per the C.A. report is harmful to public health but also in case his activities as bootlegger otherwise creates a feeling of alarm, danger or insecurity among the members of the public or a section thereof."

13 criwp1191.20

23. From the decision of this Court in Ramesh Balu Chavan Vs. The Commissioner of Police & Ors. (supra) it is clear that mere apprehension that the activities of the detenue are likely to affect adversely, the maintenance of public order is sufficient for invoking the provisions of 'the MPDA Act'. The words in Section 2 (a) (ii) of 'the MPDA Act' "are likely to affect adversely, the maintenance of public order", indicate that simply on the basis of apprehension, provisions of 'the MPDA Act' can be invoked and a person can be detained.