SANDEEP @ SHANKAR VASANT KHALASE Vs. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, PUNE CITY, PUNE
HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
Sandeep @ Shankar Vasant Khalase
Commissioner Of Police, Pune City, Pune
Click here to view full judgement.
V.K.Jadhav, J. -
(1.) Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally with consent at admission stage.
(2.) By this petition, the petitioner is challenging the legal and Constitutional validity of the order of detention bearing D.O. No.PCB/DET/3239/2016 came to be passed under Section 3 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 (Mah. Act No.L.V. Of 1981) (Amendment-1996) (Amendment-2009) (Amendment-2015) (hereinafter referred to as M.P.D.A.Act, 1981) by respondent no.1.
(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that detaining authority has referred to and relied on a single solitary incident i.e. Crime No.320/2016 under sections 307, 336, 427, 143, 144, 146, 147, 148, 149 of IPC r/w 4/25 of Arms Act 1959; read with section 37 (1)/135 of the Maharashtra Police Act and five in-camera statements of the witnesses 'A', 'B', 'C', 'D' and 'E' respectively. The detaining authority has not recorded his/its satisfaction on the grounds of detention to the effect that the authority has gone through the contents of in-camera statements and verified them. The Detaining Authority has not seen the in-camera statement copies nor endorsed on said statements as "seen'. The detaining authority has not discussed with the Assistant Commissioner of Police regarding truthfulness of the incident revealed from those incamera statements. The order of detention is illegal and bad in law for non-recording satisfaction by the detaining authority with regard to those in-camera statements.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.