Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 5 of 5 (0.21 seconds)Section 3 in The Maharashtra Prohibition Act [Entire Act]
The Maharashtra Prohibition Act
Bhikhabhai Thakerbhai Patel vs Commissioner Of Police And Ors. on 14 September, 1988
11. Learned A.G.P. has relied upon three cases in support of her contention that it is not a case where the incident was confined between the petitioner and the three witnesses, rather members of the public who gathered at the spot were also affected because threat was extended to them and knife was shown to them. In this way, according to the learned A.G.P., situation prejudicial for maintenance of public order was created. The first case relied upon by her is Bhikhabhai Thakorbhai Patel vs. Commissioner of Police, 1989 (2) GLH 420. In this case the facts were that the detenu was running liquor den in public. His customers were also misbehaving after consuming liquor. Several incidents were cited where the detenu was taking side of the persons who took liquor at his den. The detenu beat innocent citizens. Repetition of such incidents, according to the Division Bench of this court, in this case was a situation indicative of disturbance of public order. This case can be distinguished on facts. Even if it is to be taken on its face value, the question is whether mere beating by the petitioner of the witnesses or innocent persons would amount to creation of a situation adverse to maintenance of public order. No doubt, the doctrine of judicial precedents requires that the verdict of Division Bench is binding upon single Judge, but if there is a verdict of the apex court to the contrary the single Judge has to be guided by the verdict of the apex court. The verdict of the apex court to the contrary will be discussed in the following portions of this judgment.
Gopal Gangaram Nepali vs Commissioner Of Police And Ors. on 29 March, 1996
12. The second case relied upon by the learned A.G.P. has been of Gopal Gangaram Nepali vs. Commissioner of Police, 1996 (3) GLR 823. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that this verdict has been overruled by me in another case which is factually incorrect. I have not overruled this verdict, rather I have distinguished this ruling on fact. In this case this court observed that for determining whether the activities of detenu affect public order or are in the nature and in the realm of law and order, length and breadth of the activity, purpose and effect of the activity and the effect on people are to be considered. It was further held that if detenu is engaged in an activity of dealing in liquor and is found to be involved in acts of terrorising the public in the locality, beat unknown persons on assumption that such person was police informant, and threaten the people that they would meet the same fate if any one informed the police, such activities are prejudicial to maintenance of public order. Detention of the detenu on these facts was justified in this case.
1