Allauddin @ Nigro @ Babu Chand ... vs The State Of Maharashtra
2012 Latest Caselaw 58 Bom

                                                                      918-12-wp-Judgment=.doc

                        IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                             CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
                               WRIT PETITION NO.  918 OF 2012




                                                                                      
             Allauddin @ Nigro @ Babu Chand Sayyed
             Indian Citizen, Aged 27 years, Occu. Nil,




                                                              
             R/at Sathe Nagar, Near Sulabh Souchalaya,
             Sitaram Ghanshyam Chawl,
             Mankhurd, Mumbai - 400 043 at present
             at Nashik Road Central Jail, 




                                                             
             Nashik Road 422 101                                            .. Petitioner
                                            
                                 v/s.




                                                 
             1.        The State of Maharashtra, through the 
                       Government Pleader, having his office at 
                                  
                       PWD Building, High Court, Fort,
                       Bombay - 400 032.
                                 
             2.        Commissioner of Police, Brihan Mumbai
                       Deonar Police Station                                ..Respondents

             Mrs A.M.Z. Ansari, learned Amicus Curiae for the petitioner 
             Mrs. P.H. Kantharia, APP for respondents
               


             Mr. K.M. Gaikwad, PSI, Devnar Police Station Mumbai present
            



                                                    CORAM : A.M. KHANWILKAR &
                                                             R.Y.GANOO, JJ.

DATE ON WHICH JUDGMENT IS RESERVED : 14 th SEPTEMBER, 2012. DATE ON WHICH JUDGMENT IS PRONOUNCED : 3rd OCTOBER, 2012.

JUDGMENT : (Per R.Y. Ganoo, J.)

1. The petitioner is detained pursuant to detention Order

No.13/PCB/BP/Zone-VI/2011 dated 13th December, 2011 passed under the

U.S.Jagtap 1 of 23

918-12-wp-Judgment=.doc

Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords, Bootleggers,

Drug-offenders, Dangerous Persons and Video Pirates Act, 1981 (For short

"Act of 1981"). The said order is passed by the Commissioner of Police,

Briham Mumbai. The said order is approved on 20 th December, 2011 by

the State Government.

2. The grounds of detention have been served upon the petitioner by

communication dated 13th December, 2012 itself. On perusal of the

grounds of detention, it is noticed that the order of detention is passed on

the basis of following material :-

(i) Alleged involvement of the appellant in C.R. No.115 of 2011 under

Section 324 and 504 of Indian Penal Code registered at Deonar Police

station in regard to incident dated 17th July, 2011, wherein it is alleged

that one Mr. Mithun Sathe was assaulted by the petitioner causing him

injuries and that said Sathe had taken treatment at Shatabdi Hospital.

(ii) C.R. No.267 of 2011 of Chembur Police Station under Section 324,

506 r/w Section 34 of IPC in regard to the incident alleged to have taken

place on 30th July, 2011 wherein Rajaram P. Babar was assaulted by the

petitioner with iron rod and that said Rajaram was treated at Dhanvantari

U.S.Jagtap 2 of 23

918-12-wp-Judgment=.doc

Hospital at Chembur.

(iii) C.R. No.145 of 2011 of Deonar Police Station under Section 392,

323 r/w Section 34 of the I.P.C. being the incident alleged to have taken

place on 28th August, 2011, wherein the petitioner and his associates are

alleged to have robbed Mohd. Shakil Shafiq Shah of his mobile and a sum

of Rs.700/-.

(iv) In-camera statement rendered by witness "A" on 22 nd October, 2011

in regard to an incident, which have taken place in the third week of

August, 2011.

(v) In-camera statement rendered by witness "B" on 26 th October, 2011

in regard to an incident, which have taken place in second week of July

2011.

(vi) It is also noticed that action under Section 37(1)(a) r/w Section 135

of the Bombay Police Act was initiated against the petitioner on two

counts. In the grounds of detention, a general reference is made about the

preventive action taken against the petitioner under Section 110 of the

Criminal Procedure Code on three occasions.

3. A perusal of the grounds of detention at paragraph 6 would go to

show that the Detaining Authority was convinced on the basis of the

U.S.Jagtap 3 of 23

918-12-wp-Judgment=.doc

material placed before it that the petitioner had unleashed a reign of terror

and had become a perpetual danger to the society at large in the localities

of Gaikwad Nagar, P.L. Lokhande Marg, Indira Nagar, Govandi Deonar,

Mumbai and areas adjoining thereto in the jurisdiction of Mankhurd,

Chembur and Tilak Nagar in Brihan Mumbai. Further contents of

paragraph 6 also indicate that people residing and carrying out their daily

vocations in the above localities were terror stricken and their normal life

was affected adversely. It is also recorded that the activities of the

petitioner were found to be prejudicial to the maintenance of public order

in the localities mentioned aforesaid in Brihan Mumbai.

4. Paragraph 7 of the ground of detention indicate that the fact of

release of the petitioner on bail in various cases, was considered while

arriving at subjective satisfaction. The respective respondents have filed

reply-affidavit in as much as Mr. Arup Patnaik, the then Commissioner of

Police of Brihan Mumbai, Detaining Authority has filed affidavit dated 19 th

July, 2012. Mr. P.H. Wagde, Deputy Secretary, Government of Maharashtra

has filed affidavit dated 20th July, 2012. Dr. Satyapal Singh, present

Commissioner of Police has filed additional affidavit dated 29 th August,

2012. These affidavits have been duly considered in the course of hearing

U.S.Jagtap 4 of 23

918-12-wp-Judgment=.doc

of this petition.

5. This petition raises challenge to the detention order on various

counts. We shall deal with those objections ground-wise.

6. Learned advocate Mrs. Ansari appearing on behalf of the petitioner

submitted that though the grounds of detention referred to injuries caused

to Mr. Mithun Sathe, concerning C.R. No.115 of 2011 of Deonar Police

station and Mr. Rajaram P. Babar, concerning C.R. No.267 of 2011 of

Chembur Police Station, the medical certificates in regard to the injuries

suffered by so called victims have not been supplied and that material is

not placed before the Detaining Authority and consequently the subjective

satisfaction of the Detaining Authority is vitiated. According to learned

advocate Mrs. Ansari, it was necessary for the Detaining Authority to

produce these certificates to enable the petitioner to effectively put up his

representation in the matter of the impugned detention order.

7. Learned advocate Mrs. Kantharia appearing on behalf of the

respondents submitted that Mr. Sathe, as well as Mr. Babar, the victims had

suffered the injuries was apparent on the basis of the text of the FIR in as

U.S.Jagtap 5 of 23

918-12-wp-Judgment=.doc

much as in the FIR itself the information was disclosed that Mr. Mithun

Sathe had treatment for injuries suffered by him in Shatabdi Hospital. In

so far as injuries suffered by Mr. Rajaram P. Babar, the said information was

available on the basis of the FIR, which discloses that treatment was

received by Mr. Babar from Dhanvantari Hospital. Learned advocate Mrs.

Kantharia submitted that the Medical Certificates concerning these two

victims were not relied upon and that is how those documents were not

supplied and no fault, therefore, can be found for not supplying the said

Medical Certificates to the petitioner. Learned advocate Mrs. Kantharia

pointed out that the additional affidavit-in-reply filed by Dr. Satyapal Singh

deals with this aspect of the matter and in the said affidavit in paragraph

9, the above position is clarified.

8. We have considered the submissions advanced on both the sides. We

are inclined to accept the submissions advanced by learned advocate Mrs.

Kantharia. Paragraph 9 of the affidavit filed by Dr. Satyapal Singh clearly

indicates that in the FIR itself, appropriate information is divulged so as to

show that the concerned victims had suffered injuries and had taken

treatment from the Shatabdi Hospital and Dhanvantari Hospital

respectively. It is apparent that the documents in the nature of medical

U.S.Jagtap 6 of 23

918-12-wp-Judgment=.doc

certificates were not relied upon by the Sponsoring Authority and as such,

the same were not placed before the Detaining Authority for the purposes

of considering the case of the petitioner. In our view, the subjective

satisfaction of the Detaining Authority about the necessity to detain the

petitioner inter alia arrived at on the text of the FIR and in coming to the

conclusion that the victims namely Mr. Mithun Sathe and Mr. Rajaram

Babar had suffered injuries was proper. The Detaining Authority is not

expected to enquire into the truthfulness of the allegations in the FIR. In

our view, the subjective satisfaction was properly arrived at. The Detaining

Authority did consider the material placed before him in the proper

prospective so far as the point namely injuries suffered by the victims. We

reject the argument of learned advocate Mrs. Ansari that the subjective

satisfaction of the Detaining Authority is vitiated.

9. Learned advocate Mrs. Ansari had next contended that the in-

camera statements were recorded on 22nd October, 2011 and 26th October,

2011 respectively. She had submitted that the petitioner was in custody at

the time when the in-camera statements were recorded. According to her,

in-camera statements are false and fabricated and have been placed on

record only to justify the order of detention. Learned advocate Mrs. Ansari

U.S.Jagtap 7 of 23

918-12-wp-Judgment=.doc

had submitted that the two in-camera statements relating to incidents of

August, 2011 and July, 2011 should not have been considered by the

Detaining Authority for the purposes of recording the subjective

satisfaction. According to her on this count, the subjective satisfaction is

vitiated.

10. Learned advocate Mrs. Kantharia appearing on behalf of the

respondents submitted that the in-camera statements were recorded while

the petitioner was in custody. She submitted that this fact reinforces the

stand of the respondents that no person was prepared to come to give his

statement against the petitioner. According to her the in-camera

statements were in fact given by the persons and have been truthfully

recorded. According to her the in-camera statements were rightly used for

the purposes of arriving at the subjective satisfaction by the Detaining

Authority.

11. We have considered this point. We are not impressed by the stand

taken by the petitioner. It is true that the in-camera statements have been

recorded while the petitioner was in custody. However, that by itself is not

sufficient to discard the same. On perusal of the relevant portions of the

U.S.Jagtap 8 of 23

918-12-wp-Judgment=.doc

grounds of detention, it is clear that the persons who have given the in-

camera statements, have referred to the incidents, wherein they were the

victims at the hands of the petitioner. In this connection, a reference will

have to be made to paragraph 6 of the grounds of detention. A perusal of

paragraph 6 of the grounds of detention clearly indicates as to how the

members of the public in the various localities mentioned in the various

areas were scared of the activities of petitioner and as to how the activities

of the petitioner were prejudicial to the maintenance of public order in the

aforesaid localities. It will be proper to reproduce the relevant portion of

paragraph 6 of the grounds of detention as, in our view, the said portion

indicates as to how the Detaining Authority was satisfied about need to

take action against the petitioner. The relevant portion is as follows.

"6...... You have unleashed a reign of terror and have become a perpetual danger to the society at large in the localities of Gaikwad Nagar, P.L. Lokhande Marg, Indira Nagar, Govandi Deonar,

Mumbai and areas adjoining thereto in the jurisdiction of Mankhurd, Chembur and Tilak Nagar Police Station in Brihan Mumbai. People residing and carrying out their daily vocations in the above localities and areas and terror stricken and their normal life is affected adversely. Your activities are, therefore, prejudicial

to the maintenance of public order in the above localities in Brihan Mumbai."

12. It is worth noting that the two persons who came forward to give in-

U.S.Jagtap                                                                                      9 of 23





                                                                             918-12-wp-Judgment=.doc

camera statements while the petitioner was in custody. This justifies the

stand of the respondents that persons in the aforesaid localities were not

prepared to come forward to depose against the petitioner, when the

petitioner was moving in the society on the basis of bail orders secured by

him.

13. It was next contended by learned advocate Mrs. Ansari that the

Detaining Authority has relied upon the actions initiated against the

petitioner on two occasions under the provisions of Bombay Police Act.

She pointed out to us the provisions of Section 2(b-1) of the Act of 1981

and submitted that in order to call a person as a "dangerous person" within

the meaning of Section 2(b-1) actions initiated under the provisions of the

Bombay Police Act, cannot be considered. Learned advocate Mrs. Ansari,

therefore, submitted that the material placed before the Detaining

Authority has not been properly appreciated and the subjective satisfaction

arrived at is vitiated on the ground that the Detaining Authority has

considered the material, which is not a germen for the purposes of

deciding whether the petitioner should be detained under the Act of 1981.

14. Learned advocate Mrs. Kantharia appearing on behalf of the

U.S.Jagtap 10 of 23

918-12-wp-Judgment=.doc

respondents submitted that in addition to the three incidents covered

under the provisions of the I.P.C. and two in-camera statements, the action

initiated against the petitioner under the Bombay Police Act was placed

before the Detaining Authority in order to place before the Detaining

Authority the over all conduct of the petitioner. She submitted that merely

because the material concerning the action initiated under the Bombay

Police Act is placed before the Detaining Authority, the subjective

satisfaction is not vitiated.

15. We have considered this contention. We are not impressed by the

argument advanced by learned advocate Mrs. Ansari. A perusal of the

grounds of detention would clearly indicate that the Detaining Authority

has arrived at the conclusion that the petitioner is required to be detained

by relying upon the incidents covered under the provisions of IPC and two

in-camera statements. The Detaining Authority has based its subjective

satisfaction on the aforesaid material. The placement of the material

concerning action under the Bombay Police Act against the petitioner

should be treated as placing additional material for the purposes of

showing the overall conduct of the petitioner. In this view of the matter,

the objection to the detention order raised in terms of this ground cannot

U.S.Jagtap 11 of 23

918-12-wp-Judgment=.doc

be sustained.

16. Learned advocate Mrs. Ansari appearing on behalf of the petitioner

raised another point so as to challenge the order of detention by

contending that the acts alleged against the petitioner are not in any

manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. She took us

through the incidents quoted by the Detaining Authority, which are alleged

to have taken place on 17th July, 2011, 13th July, 2011 and 28th August,

2011. By relying upon the grounds of detention so far as these incidents

are concerned, she submitted that the incidents alleged to have taken place

on 17th July, 2011 as well as on 13 th July, 2011 indicate that the said

incidents are allegedly between the petitioner and the respective

complainant namely Mr. Mithun Sathe and Rajaram P. Babar. Learned

advocate Mrs. Ansari submitted that members of the public were not

involved in the said incidents and these two incidents are qua the aforesaid

two persons and therefore, there was no breach of public order when these

incidents are alleged to have taken place. Same was the argument so far

as incident, which is said to have been taken place on 28th August, 2011.

17. Learned advocate Mrs. Ansari had further submitted that there is a

U.S.Jagtap 12 of 23

918-12-wp-Judgment=.doc

marked difference between breach of law and order and breach of public

order. According to her the three incidents alleged against the petitioner

would fall within the term "breach of law and order" and not under the

"breach of public order". She submitted that since the incidents on which

reliance is placed for the purpose of passing the order of detention fall

under category "breach of law and order", an order of detention under the

Act of 1981 could not have been passed because the power to pass

detention order under the Act of 1981 can be used for the purposes of

maintenance of public order. Learned advocate Mrs. Ansari relied upon

the judgment in the case of Ajay Dixit Vs. State of U.P. And Ors. (1984) 4

Supreme Court Cases 400 to support the contention that there is a

distinction between breach of law and order and threat to public order.

Learned advocate Mrs. Ansari had submitted that even if it is accepted that

out of three incidents, incident of 28 th August, 2011 is the one on which

reliance can be placed by the Detaining Authority for the purpose of

passing detention order, as causing breach of public oder, still solitary

incident alleged against the petitioner would not be sufficient to pass an

order of detention. According to her the detention order based on the

solitary incident of 28th August, 2011, cannot sustain. Learned advocate

Mrs. Ansari clarified that this argument is advanced on the strength of her

U.S.Jagtap 13 of 23

918-12-wp-Judgment=.doc

earlier arguments that in-camera statements rendered while the petitioner

was in custody should not be relied upon. Learned advocate Mrs. Ansari

had relied upon the judgment in the case of Mustakmiya Jabbarmiya

Shaikh Vs. M.M. Mehta, Commissioner of Police and Ors. (1995) 3

Supreme court Cases 237 to submit that in order to come to the

conclusion that the order of detention is required to be passed, the

Detaining Authority should be satisfied that the acts alleged to have been

committed by the person who is sought to be detained should disturb the

even tempo of life of people. According to her, acts alleged against the

petitioner were not of such a nature as would result in causing disturbance

to the public order and that the even tempo of life of the people was not

disturbed. She, therefore, submitted that the impugned order of detention

is required to be set aside.

18. Learned advocate Mrs. Kantharia appearing on behalf of the

respondents opposed the submission advanced by learned advocate for the

petitioner. Learned advocate Mrs. Kantharia pointed out to the Court that

the petitioner did indulge in offence under the I.P.C. punishable under

Chapter XVI and Chapter XVII being three incidents namely, incident of

17th July, 2011, 13th July, 2011 and 28th August, 2011. She pointed out

U.S.Jagtap 14 of 23

918-12-wp-Judgment=.doc

that the petitioner participated in three incidents within a span of 1 ½

month. She submitted that the 3 incidents quoted against the petitioner

clearly indicate that the petitioner was habitually committing offences

punishable under Chapter XVI and XVII of the I.P.C. She submitted that as

the petitioner successively indulged in the commission of offences on three

occasions, the petitioner will have to be termed as a "dangerous person"

within the meaning of Section 2(b-1) of Act of 1981. Learned advocate

Mrs. Kantharia further submitted that reading of Section 2(a) and

explanation attached to Section 2(a) of Act of 1981, it will be clear that the

Detaining Authority was right in passing the detention order by relying

upon the three incidents and two in-camera statements. Learned advocate

Mrs. Kantharia submitted that for consideration of the question whether

the petitioner could be said to be a "dangerous person", it is necessary to

read the definition of the term in Section 2(b-1) of Act of 1981 and the

provisions of Section 2(a-iv) of Act of 1981 which defines the term "acting

in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order" as

applicable to category of person viz. "dangerous person". Learned

advocate Mrs. Kantharia submitted that the legal fiction in the explanation

must be read conjointly with Section 2 (a-iv), which defines the term

"acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order".

U.S.Jagtap                                                                                        15 of 23





                                                                             918-12-wp-Judgment=.doc

According to her, if a person is found to be repeatedly commits or

habitually engages in the activities mentioned in Section 2(b-1), he would

be covered by the term "dangerous person" and an order of detention can

be passed in exercise of the power conferred on authorities under Section

3 of the Act of 1981. Learned advocate Mrs. Kantharia in support of this

proposition relied upon the judgment in the case of Phulwari Jagdamba

Prasad Pathak (Smt) Vs. R.H. Mendonca and Ors. (2000) 6 Supreme

Court Cases 751.

19. Learned advocate Mrs. Kantharia further submitted that even if for a

moment the incidents alleged to have taken place on 17 th July, 2011 and

13th July, 2011 are said to have resulted in breach of law and order, still the

incident alleged to have taken place on 28 th August, 2011 will have to be

treated as one resulting into threat to public order thereby giving an alarm

to the members of the society. Learned advocate Mrs. Kantharia pointed

out that the petitioner is alleged to have created a terror in the minds of

the members of the public who were present at the scene of offence.

Learned advocate Mrs. Kantharia pointed out that Mr. Roshan Pawaskar

and one more associate of the petitioner also joined the petitioner at the

relevant time. Learned advocate Mrs. Kantharia pointed out from the

U.S.Jagtap 16 of 23

918-12-wp-Judgment=.doc

grounds of detention necessary material which shows that the petitioner

used knife in the course of incident and administered threats to the

members of the public who were around. She submitted that on account

of this conduct of the petitioner, people ran away helter skelter and the

petitioner tried to escape. Learned advocate Mrs. Kantharia relied upon

the ground no.5(e)(i) and submitted that the incident, which is alleged to

have been taken place on 28th August, 2011 is described in the said ground

and a perusal of the same would go to show that the said incident resulted

in breach of public order. Learned advocate Mrs. Kantharia had submitted

that in addition to this incident of 28 th August, 2011, the Detaining

Authority has relied upon two in-camera statements and has passed the

detention order. Learned advocate Mrs. Kantharia had submitted that the

Detaining Authority has rightly considered the material placed before it

and has passed an order after it was convinced that the petitioner is a

"dangerous person" within the meaning of Section 2(b-1) of the Act of

1981 and that the overt acts committed by the petitioner were prejudicial

to the maintenance of the public order as defined in Section 2 of the Act of

1981. Learned advocate Mrs. Kantharia had, therefore, submitted that the

detention order has rightly passed by the Detaining Authority.

U.S.Jagtap                                                                                        17 of 23





                                                                               918-12-wp-Judgment=.doc

20. We have considered the rival submissions and the judgment cited by

both the sides. We have perused the judgment in the case of Ajay Dixit Vs.

State of U.P. & Ors. (Supra). In the said judgment the Supreme Court at

paragraph 16 has observed as follows :-

"It is, therefore, necessary in each case to examine the facts to determine, not the sufficiency of the grounds nor the truth of the grounds, but nature of the grounds alleged and see whether these are relevant or not for considering whether the detention of

the detenu is necessary for maintenance of public order."

21.

A reading of this observation of the Supreme Court would clearly go

to show that question whether overt acts alleged against the person

amount to "breach of law and order" or "breach of public order" would

depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case. So far as record of

the present case is concerned, even if it is accepted for a moment that the

incidents said to have been committed on 17 th July, 2011 and 13th July,

2011 are referable to "breach of law and order", still the incident of 28 th

August, 2011 alleged against the petitioner and two in-camera statements

are sufficient to hold that the Detaining Authority did cause threat to

public order and the Detaining Authority has rightly come to the

conclusion that the detention order is required to be passed against the

U.S.Jagtap 18 of 23

918-12-wp-Judgment=.doc

petitioner. In this view of the matter, the judgment relied upon by the

learned advocate Mrs. Ansari in the case of Darpan Kumar Sharma Vs.

State of T.N. and Ors. 2003 Supreme Court Cases (Cri.) 537 would have

no application.

22. The incidents of 17th July, 2011 and 13th July, 2011 alleged against

the petitioner indicate that the petitioner committed offence punishable

under Chapter XVI of the I.P.C. These two incidents coupled with the

incident alleged to have been taken place on 28 th August, 2011 covered by

Chapter XVII of the I.P.C. and the incidents quoted in the two in-camera

statements clearly indicate that the petitioner was rightly termed as a

"dangerous person" within the meaning of Section 2(b-1) of the Act of

1981.

23. Learned advocate Mrs. Kantharia appearing on behalf of the

respondents had relied upon the judgment in the case of Sujit Suresh

Menpal Vs. A.N. Roy & Ors. 2007(1) Bom. C.R. (Cri.) 938 and had

submitted that detention order passed on the basis of one FIR and two in-

camera statements was confirmed by this Court. She relied upon the

judgment in the case of Jafar Ahmed alias Jafar Fantoosh Mohamad

U.S.Jagtap 19 of 23

918-12-wp-Judgment=.doc

Razzak Khan Vs. M.N. Singh and Ors. 2002 Cri. L.J. 1723 and submitted

that in this case detention order passed on the basis of two in-camera

statements only, was accepted by this Court as properly passed. Learned

advocate Mrs. Kantharia submitted that in the present case, the detention

order is passed on the basis of three incidents covered under the IPC

pertaining to offences punishable under Chapter XVI of the I.P.C. and two

in-camera statements. She, therefore, submitted that no fault can be

found in the detention order.

24. We have perused the judgments quoted above. We are in agreement

with the submission of learned advocate Mrs. Kantharia. We see no

reason to differ from the view taken by this Court in the judgments in the

case of Sujit Suresh Menpal Vs. A.N. Roy & Ors. (Supra) and Jafar Ahmed

alias Jafar Fantoosh Mohamad Razzak Khan Vs. M.N. Singh and Ors.

(Supra).

25. On consideration of the incidents quoted in the grounds of

detention, we hold that the same were germane to arrive at the subjective

satisfaction that the even tempo of life of people was disturbed and these

incidents quoted against the petitioner, resulted in breach of public order.

U.S.Jagtap                                                                                          20 of 23





                                                                             918-12-wp-Judgment=.doc

In our view, the Detaining Authority has rightly appreciated the material

placed before it and has passed an appropriate order. For these reasons,

we are not inclined to interfere with the order of detention on the

argument under consideration.

26. Learned advocate Mrs. Ansari next contended that there was a delay

in passing the detention order and on that count, the detention order is

required to be set aside. Learned advocate Mrs. Ansari took us through the

relevant dates concerning the incidents alleged against the petitioner as

well as the relevant dates when the two in-camera statements were

recorded. Learned advocate Mrs. Ansari submitted that there has been a

delay in passing the order of detention and as such the same should be

quashed and set aside. In support of her contention that delay in passing

the detention order vitiates the subjective satisfaction, she relied upon the

judgment in the case of Austin William Luis Pinto Vs. Commissioner of

Police, Greater Mumbai & Ors. 2005, All MR (Cri) 28.

27. Learned advocate Mrs. Kantharia appearing on behalf of the

respondents opposed this submission. We have considered the relevant

dates. We have also perused the affidavit filed by Mr. Arup Patnaik, the

U.S.Jagtap 21 of 23

918-12-wp-Judgment=.doc

then Commissioner of Police, who had passed the detention order. It is

noticed that the material relied upon by Sponsoring Authority in terms of

three incidents have taken place between the period 17 th July, 2011 to 28th

August, 2011 and the two in-camera statements, which are recorded on

22nd October, 2011 and 26th October, 2011 respectively. After the aforesaid

material was placed before the Detaining Authority, the order of detention

has been passed on 13th December, 2011. It is true that the two in-camera

statements relate to the incidents, which have taken place in the month of

August, 2011 and July, 2011 respectively. However, we are inclined to

note that the persons came forward to give in-camera statements only

when the petitioner was in custody. Hence, though the in-camera

statements relate to the period namely July, 2011 and August, 2011, it

cannot be said that there was a delay in recording the in-camera

statements.

28. After considering the relevant dates, we are inclined to observe that

the Detaining Authority had attended to the matter as expeditiously as

possible and in any case there has been no delay much less intentional

delay on the part of the Detaining Authority. Hence, the judgment relied

upon by the learned advocate Mrs. Ansari in the case of Austin William

U.S.Jagtap 22 of 23

918-12-wp-Judgment=.doc

Luis Pinto Vs. Commissioner of Police, Greater Mumbai (Supra) will have no

application to the facts of this case.

29. For the aforesaid reasons we are inclined to observe that the

Detaining Authority has rightly considered the material placed before it

and the order of detention is properly passed. For these reasons, we are of

the view that no interference is required with the impugned order of

detention. Hence, we are inclined to dismiss the petition. Accordingly, the

petition is dismissed.

30. We express word of gratitude and commendation for the industry

and able assistance given by learned advocate Mrs. Ansari, who was

appointed by the Court as Amicus Curiae.

                  [R.Y.GANOO, J.]                                   [A.M. KHANWILKAR, J.]





U.S.Jagtap                                                                                        23 of 23