Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned APP for the State.

2. The petitioner / detenu Ramesh Balu Chavan has preferred this petition questioning the preventive detention order passed against him on 22.11.2016 by respondent No. 1

- the Commissioner of Police, Solapur. The said detention order has been passed in exercise of the powers under Section 3(2) of the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords, Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Dangerous Persons, Video Pirates, Sand Smugglers and persons engaged in Black-marketing of Essential Commodities Act, 1981 (No. LV of 1981) (Amendment - 1996, 2009 & 2015) (hereinafter referred to as the "MPDA Act"). The said order has been passed as the detenu is a bootlegger whose activities are prejudicial to the maintenance of public order and public health. The said detention order is based on three C.Rs. and two incamera statements of witness "A" and witness "B". The three C.Rs.

1. cri wp 4403-16 (j).doc Thus, even if it is assumed that the ground relating to C.R. No. 276/2017 is not relevant for issuing the detention order under the MPDA Act or is invalid for some reason, the same can be severed in view of Section 5A of the MPDA Act. This would mean that the detention order is based on the remaining four grounds. These 4 grounds, in our opinion, are sufficient for the detaining authority to reach his subjective satisfaction that it was necessary to detain the detenu under the provisions of MPDA Act as he is a 'bootlegger'.

17. The last ground raised by Mr. Tripathi is ground (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

1. cri wp 4403-16 (j).doc 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

1. cri wp 4403-16 (j).doc 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.