Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 14 (0.21 seconds)The Maharashtra Prohibition Act
Section 65 in The Maharashtra Prohibition Act [Entire Act]
Section 2 in The Maharashtra Prohibition Act [Entire Act]
Vasudev Mahadev Surve vs The State Of Maharashtra, Home Dept ... on 16 December, 2021
"3. We find from the grounds of detention that two
crimes, bearing Crime No. 451 of 2022 for an offence
punishable under Sections 65(d) of the Maharashtra
Prohibition Act, 1949 and Crime No. 265 of 2022 for an
offence punishable under Sections 65(k)(d)(f) of the
Maharashtra Prohibition Act, 1949 both registered at
Police Station Ramdas Peth, Akola were not considered to
be so serious by the Police as to warrant arrest of the
petitioner in each of these crimes. If this is so, in our view,
the learned counsel for the petitioner is right in his
submission that when a particular criminal activity of the
detenue is not considered to be so serious as to warrant his
arrest under the regular law, his detention under the law
relating to preventive detention would be wholly
unjustified. This is also the view taken by this Court and
also Co-ordinate Benches of this Court in the cases as
Vasudev Mahadev Surve Vs. The State of Maharashtra and
Another in Criminal Writ Petition No. 592 of 2021, decided
on 16.12.2021, Hanif Karim Laluwale Vs. State of
Maharashtra and others, in Criminal Writ Petition No. 75
of 2022, decided on 28.06.2022, Kasam Kalu Nimsurwale
Vs. State of Maharashtra and another, in Criminal Writ
Petition No. 269 of 2022, decided on 26.07.2022 and
Akshay Kishor Madavi Vs. State of Maharashtra and
others, in Criminal Writ Petition No. 258 of 2022, decided
on 19.08.2022.
Section 41 in The Maharashtra Prohibition Act [Entire Act]
Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Arun Ghosh vs State Of West Bengal on 2 December, 1959
In Arun Ghosh v. State of W.B., again Hidayatullah, J.
speaking for the Court, pointed out that what in a given
situation may be matter covered by law and order, on account
of its impact on the society may really turn out to be one of
'public order'. It was observed : (SCC p. 100, para 3)
"Take the case of assault on girls. A guest at a hotel
may kiss or make advances to half a dozen chambermaids. He
may annoy them and also the management but he does not
cause disturbance of public order. He may even have a fracas
with the friends of one of the girls but even then it would be a
case of breach of law and order only. Take another case of a
man who molests women in lonely places. As a result of his
activities girls going to colleges and schools are in constant
danger and fear. Women going for their ordinary business are
afraid of being waylaid and assaulted. The activity of this man
in its essential quality is not different from the act of the other
man but in its potentiality and in its effect upon the public
tranquility there is a vast difference. The act of the man who
molests the girls in lonely places causes a disturbance in the
even tempo of living which is the first requirement of public
order. He disturbs the society and the community. His act
makes all the women apprehensive of their honour and he
can be said to be causing disturbance of public order and not
merely committing individual actions which may be taken
note of by the criminal prosecution agencies."
The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
Hanif Karim Laluwale vs State Of Mah. Thr. Additional Chief ... on 28 June, 2022
"3. We find from the grounds of detention that two
crimes, bearing Crime No. 451 of 2022 for an offence
punishable under Sections 65(d) of the Maharashtra
Prohibition Act, 1949 and Crime No. 265 of 2022 for an
offence punishable under Sections 65(k)(d)(f) of the
Maharashtra Prohibition Act, 1949 both registered at
Police Station Ramdas Peth, Akola were not considered to
be so serious by the Police as to warrant arrest of the
petitioner in each of these crimes. If this is so, in our view,
the learned counsel for the petitioner is right in his
submission that when a particular criminal activity of the
detenue is not considered to be so serious as to warrant his
arrest under the regular law, his detention under the law
relating to preventive detention would be wholly
unjustified. This is also the view taken by this Court and
also Co-ordinate Benches of this Court in the cases as
Vasudev Mahadev Surve Vs. The State of Maharashtra and
Another in Criminal Writ Petition No. 592 of 2021, decided
on 16.12.2021, Hanif Karim Laluwale Vs. State of
Maharashtra and others, in Criminal Writ Petition No. 75
of 2022, decided on 28.06.2022, Kasam Kalu Nimsurwale
Vs. State of Maharashtra and another, in Criminal Writ
Petition No. 269 of 2022, decided on 26.07.2022 and
Akshay Kishor Madavi Vs. State of Maharashtra and
others, in Criminal Writ Petition No. 258 of 2022, decided
on 19.08.2022.