VIKI BABAN GALTE Vs. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE
LAWS(BOM)-2017-1-304
HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
Decided on January 18,2017

Viki Baban Galte Appellant
VERSUS
COMMISSIONER OF POLICE Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.) Heard both sides.
(2.) The petitioner / detenu - Viki Baban Galte has preferred this petition questioning the preventive detention order passed against him on 26.4.2016 by the Respondent No.1 i.e. Commissioner of Police, Pune. The said detention order has been passed in exercise of 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 (Mah. Act No. LV of 1981) (Amendment-1996), (Amendment - 2009), (Amendment - 2015) (hereinafter referred to as "MPDA Act") as the detenu is a dangerous person whose activities are prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. The said detention order is based on 3 C.Rs. and 2 incamera statements of witness "A" and witness "B". The three CRs. are CR No. 43 of 2016, CR No. 127 of 2016 and CR No. 128 of 2016. The order of detention, grounds of detention along with accompanying documents were served on the detenu on 26.4.2016.
(3.) Though a number of grounds have been raised in the present petition whereby the detention order has been assailed, however, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has pressed only five grounds before us. They are ground Nos. 5(f), 5(i), 5(d), 5(h) and 5(b). Ground Nos. 5(f) and 5(i) are regarding delay in considering the representation. It is contended that there is inordinate delay in considering the representation, hence, the detention order ought to be quashed and set aside. In ground 5(d) and Ground 5(h), it is stated that activities of the detenu did not affect the public order, hence, the detention order is vitiated. In ground 5(b) it is stated that though in the opening paragraph of grounds of detention, it is stated that the detention order is based on the material disclosed in paragraphs 4 and 5 of the grounds of detention, however, if paragraphs 6, 7 and 9 of the grounds of detention are examined, it becomes clear that the detaining authority has considered extraneous material and hence, the order of detention is illegal and bad in law and liable to be quashed and set aside.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.