Arjun Ganpati Devendra vs Shri M.N. Singh, Commissioner Of ...
2001 Latest Caselaw 198 Bom

JUDGMENT

Vishnu Sahai. J.

1. Through this Writ Petition preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the Petitioner who describes himself as the brother of the detenu Anna Dorai alias Dilli Ganpati Devendra, has impugned the detention order dated 30.8.2000 passed by the 1st Respondent Mr. M. N. Singh, Commissioner of Police, Brihan Mumbai, Detaining the detenu under subsection 1 of Section 3 of the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords, Bootleggers, Drug Offenders and Dangerous Persons Act, 1981 (No. IV of 1981) (Amendment 1996).

The detention order along with the grounds of detention which are also dated 30.8.2000 was served on the detenu on 5.8.2000 and their true copies are annexed as Annexures A and C respectively to this petition.

2. A perusal of the grounds of detention (Exhibit "C") would show that the impugned order is founded on one C. R., viz. C.R. No. 38/2000 under Sections 354, 324 and 504 of the I.P.C. registered at R.C.F. Police Station on the basis of a complaint dated 2.3.2000 lodged by one Shrimati Roshan w/o Mustafa Khan and in camera statements of two witnesses viz. A and B, which were recorded on 13.6.2000 and 15.6.2000, respectively.

2A. The details contained in the said C.R., in short, are as under :

The complainant Shrimati Roshan w/o Mustafa Khan is a resident of New Bahrain Nagar, Vashinaka, Chembur, Mumbai. On 2.3.2000 at about 10 p.m. the detenu came in front of her room; enquired from her whether her husband was in the room; on learning from her that he had gone out, touched her breast, resulting in her crying, and then caught her hand and pulled her. At that juncture her husband along with his friend came and she narrated the incident to the former. When her husband and his friend reprimanded the detenu he started abusing them and after hurling a stone on the friend of her husband ran away.

2B. The details, in short, as contained in the in camera statements are as under :

Witness "A" in his statement recorded on 13.6.2000 stated that he knew the detenu and his associate Babu as notorious gundas of the area, who on the point of deadly weapons used to collect Hafta money from the hawkers, shop-keepers and rickshaw drivers as well as passersby, and had created a reign of terror in the area to such an extent that none dared to lodge complaint against them. One day at about 9 p.m. In the second week of March. 2000 when the witness was proceeding towards his house and was passing from H.P.C.L. Colony, the detenu and his associates way laid him: the detenu caught hold of his collar, slapped him and threatened him; his associate gave a fist blow on his face; and when he shouted the detenu whipped out a rampuri knife, forcibly removed Rs. 350/- from his shirt pocket and while so removing threatened him to cut into pieces if he lodged complaint. On seeing this the passersby got frightened and ran away,

Witness "B" in his statement recorded on 15.6.2000 stated that he knew the detenu and his associate Babu as notorious gundas of the area, who on the point of deadly weapons used to collect 'khandani' money from the hawkers, shopkeepers and residents of the area. One day at about 9 p.m., in the third week of March, 2000, when the witness was returning home from flour mill the detenu and his two associates way laid her and the detenu pressed her mouth and pulled her by the side of a railway cabin. The detenu then whipped out a rampuri knife; embraced and kissed her; and when she gave a hard push and extricated herself from his clutches he gave a knife blow on her left thumb, resulting in her sustaining a minor injury.

3. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. Although in this Writ Petition Mr. Kocharekar, learned counsel for the Petitioner, has pleaded a large number of grounds, numbered as grounds 6(i) to 6(xi) but he has only pressed before us two grounds viz those pleaded as ground Nos. 6(x) and 6(v).

4. We propose to consider each of the said grounds. Ground 6(x) in substance is that between the lodging of C.R. (C.R. No. 38/2000) and the date of issuance of the impugned detention order there was a gap of nearly six months which had snapped the live link between the prejudicial activities of the detenu and the rationale of clamping a detention order on him and had vitiated the subjective satisfaction of the Detaining Authority.

5. Ground 6(x) has been replied to in two returns viz. in para 18 of the return of the Detaining Authority and para 2 of the return of Mr. R. B. Salunkhe, Inspector of Police, (Crime), the Sponsoring Authority.

In short in para 18 the Detaining Authority has stated that the last in camera statement was recorded on 15.6.2000; thereafter the Sponsoring Authority after collecting the material submitted the proposal through proper channel, for detention of detenu on 19.6.2000 to P.C.B.. C.I.D., who carefully went through all the papers and gave his endorsement on 22.6.2000 and forwarded the papers to Additional Commissioner of Police North East Region, who after going through the papers gave his endorsement on 23.6.2000. On 28.6.2000 the papers came to be forwarded to the Inspector of Police, P.C.B., C.I.D., who after going through them gave his endorsement and forwarded the papers to the Deputy Commissioner of

Police, Mumbai, who in turn after going through them gave his endorsement on 30.6.2000. Thereafter all the papers were forwarded to Deputy Commissioner of Police, (Crime), who gave his endorsement on 3.7.2000 and forwarded the papers to Joint Commissioner of Police (Crime), who gave his endorsement on 4.7.2000 and placed the papers along with the entire material before the Detaining Authority who went through them; opined that it was a fit case for detention; and gave his endorsement on 14.7.2000. Then the papers were forwarded to the Sponsoring Authority for the purpose of fair typing, preparing the translation of documents in the language known to the detenu and preparing the necessary sets of documents etc. After the same was done the papers were placed before the Senior P.I., P.C.B., C.I.D., who forwarded them to the Additional Commissioner of Police (Crime) on 16.8.2000, who on the said date itself submitted the papers to the Detaining Authority. Since the Detaining Authority during the said period had more than 20 proposals, 13 out of which were fresh proposals, he after carefully going through the papers of the proposals before him issued the detention order on 30.8.2000.

At the end of para 18 the Detaining Authority has averred that looking to the facts of this case and bearing in mind the propensity and potentiality of the detenu to indulge in similar prejudicial activities, it cannot be said that the grounds are stale or live link between the prejudicial activities of the detenu and the rationale of clamping a detention order on him, as been snapped.

6. We now propose setting forth the explanation furnished in para 2 of the return of Mr. R. B. Salunkhe, Inspector of Police, (Crime), the Sponsor-Ing Authority. In short he stated that after the Detaining Authority had affixed his endorsement dated 14.7.2000 the papers were received in his office on 17.7.2000; (15.7.2000 and 16.7.2000 were holidays, being Saturday and Sunday). On 16.7.2000 there was Bombay Bandh call. In view of the imminent threat of arrest of Balasaheb Thackrey, on account of which the entire police staff was put on alert duty throughout day and night. Hence after preparing the necessary set of documents etc., the proposal was entrusted to Suresh Typing and Translation Centre, for necessary translation of documents on 24.7.2000. The entire papers consisted of more than 133 pages. They had to be translated in Hindi language and since the said translator was having other translations in hand he took about 13 days to complete the entire translations and after completing the same they were received on 7.8.2000 in his office. Thereafter the Senior Inspector of Police, R.C.F. Police Station prepared the necessary sets of documents (in all nine sets) got their fair-typing, xeroxing etc, done and forwarded the same to Senior Inspector, P.C.B., C.I.D., on 12.8.2000 for further processing.

At the end of para 2 it has been mentioned that considering the bulk of the documents, the time taken in translation, preparing necessary sets, fair typing and xeroxing done etc. was reasonable and cannot be castigated as being long and devoid of a sense of urgency.

7. We have examined ground 6(x), the reply to the said ground furnished in para 18 of the return of the Detaining Authority and para 2 of the return of Sponsoring Authority and heard learned counsel for the parties. In our view ground 6(x) is devoid of any substance. We feel that the explanation

furnished in the two returns satisfactorily explains the delay in the issuance of the detention order.

8. Mr. Kocharekar learned counsel for the Petitioner categorically invited our attention to two pockets of delay; from 14.7.2000 to 16.8.2000 and from 16.8.2000 to 30.8.2000. Mr. Kocharekar urged that a perusal of the two returns would show that on 14.7-2000 the Detaining Authority had opined that it was a fit case for detention and gave his endorsement to the said effect and forwarded the papers to the Sponsoring Authority for the purpose of fair typing etc. He also contended that it took the Sponsoring Authority 32 days time to get the same done; which time, in his contention was unduly long and suggestive of the fact that the Sponsoring Authority was oblivious of the promptitude with which a preventive detention matter had to be dealt with.

9. We have reflected over Mr. Kocharekar's submission and are constrained to observe that we do not find any merit in it. We have earlier extracted the substance contained in para 2 of the return of Mr. R. B. Salunkhe, Inspector of Police, (Crime), the Sponsoring Authority. In the said paragraph he has explained the delay in the said period. He has stated that after the Detaining Authority had affixed his endorsement on 14.7.2000, the papers were received in his office on 17.7.2000 (15.7.2000 and 16.7.2000 were holidays, being Saturday and Sunday). On 16.7.2000 there was a call for Bombay Bandh in view of the imminent threat of arrest of Balasaheb Thackrey. Consequently the entire police staff was put on alert duty throughout day and night to maintain law and order. Hence after preparing the necessary sets of documents etc., the papers were sent for translation to Suresh Typing and Translation Centre, and since the papers were of more than 133 pages and the translator had other work, the translation of documents could only be finished on 7.8.2000 and sent to the office of the Sponsoring Authority. Thereafter the Senior Inspector of Police, P.C.B., C.I.D., prepared the necessary sets of documents, got them typed, xeroxed etc. and forwarded them to Senior P.I., P.C.B., C.I.D., on 12.8.2000. In our view the said averments set out in the return of the Sponsoring Authority sufficiently explain the delay between 14.7.2000 and 16-8.2000.

10. We now come to the second pocket of delay pointed out by Mr. Kocharekar viz. 16.8.2000 to 30.8.2000. In our view this pocket has also been explained. The Detaining Authority has categorically mentioned that in the said period he had received more than 20 proposals, out of which 13 were fresh and they had to be meticulously read. He has also mentioned therein that after going through them and the papers pertaining to the detenu's proposal he issued the detention order on 30.8.2000. In our judgment, in view of the explanation furnished above, the said period of 14 days cannot be faulted as excessive.

11. It should be borne in mind that this Court while considering the question of delay in the issuance of a detention order does not examine whether each day's delay has been explained. The angle of approach is whether as a whole the delay has been explained and the Detaining and Sponsoring Authorities have acted with promptitude. If on the basis of the returns filed by the Detaining and Sponsoring Authorities this Court reaches the conclusion that the said authorities have on the whole, acted promptly and have been alive to the promptitude with which a preventive

detention proposal has to be disposed of this Court would not strike down a detention order on the vice of its being vitiated by delay. It is only where the authorities are callous and oblivious to the promptitude to which a preventive detention proposal has to be dealt with and there is a sluggishness and lack of urgency on their part to dispose of such a proposal, would a detention order be vitiated on the vice of delay.

12. We now come to the second ground viz. ground 6(v).

Ground 6(v) in short is that the remand application, bail order, charge-sheet etc. relating to C.R. No. 39/2000 were not placed before the Detaining Authority and consequently the subjective satisfaction of the Detaining Authority was impaired.

13. Mr. Kocharekar learned counsel for the Petitioner strenuously urged that in para 1 of the grounds of detention the Detaining Authority has stated that he has communicated to the detenu the grounds, mentioned in para 4. He Invited our attention to para 4(a)(iii) where there is a reference to C.R. No. 39 of 2000 under Section 324/34 of the I.P.C. registered on the basis of a complaint lodged by the detenu against Mustafa Khan and Sayed Khan. Mr. Kocharekar argued that since the said C.R. Is a ground, the remand application, the bail order, the charge -sheet and the Injury report of the detenu etc., pertaining to the said C.R., were vital documents and their non-placement before the Detaining Authority has vitiated his subjective satisfaction.

14. Ground No. 6(v) has been replied to in para 12 of the return of the Detaining Authority. In the said paragraph, the Detaining Authority has averred that the F.I.R. pertaining to C.R. No. 39/2000 of R.C.F. Police Station (which was a counter case) was placed before him and he had minutely considered it. He has categorically averred therein that the remand application, bail application, charge sheet were not placed before him and were not considered by him because they were extraneous material.

15. We have perused the averments made in ground 6(v) and those made in para 12 of the return of the Detaining Authority wherein the said ground has been replied to and considered Mr. Kocharekar's submission.

We are constrained to observe that we do not find any merit in Mr. Kocharekar's submission. A perusal of the impugned detention order would show that it is not founded on C.R. No. 39/2000 but instead is founded on C.R. No. 38/2000 and in camera statements of witnesses A and B. Since the impugned order was not founded on C.R. No. 39/2000 the remand application, the bail order, the charge-sheet and the injury report of the detenu relating to the said C.R. were not vital documents and their non-placement before the Detaining Authority has not vitiated his subjective satisfaction.

15A. It should be borne in mind that the law only requires that vital documents should be placed before the Detaining Authority and vital documents mean documents, the perusal of which is necessary by the Detaining Authority in arriving at his subjective satisfaction to pass a detention order. In our view a perusal of:- the remand application the bail order, the chargesheet and the injury report of the victim, relating to C.R. No. 39 of 2000, was not necessary by the Detaining Authority in arriving

at his subjective satisfaction to pass the detention order. Hence their non-placement before him has not vitiated his subjective satisfaction.

16. We also make no bones in observing that C.R. No. 39 of 2000 is not actually a ground of detention and reference to it has been made by the Detaining Authority in paragraph 4(a)(iii) only to complete the factual narration. We wish to emphasise that grounds of detention mean the basis and material on which a detention order is founded and as seen in paragraph 15 the detention order is not founded on the said C.R.

17. Merely because the F.I.R. of C.R. No. 39 of 2000 was placed before the Detaining Authority and examined by him does not mean that the remand application, the bail order, the charge-sheet and the injury report of the detenu etc., relating to the said C.R., should also have been placed before him and examined by him.

18. For the said reasons we do not find any merit in ground 6(v).

19. Since only grounds 6(x) and 6(v) have been pressed before us and for reasons mentioned above, we have rejected the said grounds, we have not considered the other grounds of challenge pleaded in the petition.

20. In the result we dismiss this writ petition and discharge the rule.