Bombay High Court
Shri. Ravindrasing @ Muliasing ... vs The Commissioner Of Police Nagpur ... on 29 February, 2016
Bench: B.P. Dharmadhikari
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR
Criminal Writ Petition No. 660 of 2015
Petitioner : Ravindrasing @ Mullasing son of Sarwansing
Gour, aged about 30 years, resident of Kundanlal
Gupta Nagar, Nagpur
versus
Respondents : 1) The Commissioner of Police, Nagpur (City),
Nagpur
2) The State of Maharashtra, through Additional
Chier Secretary to the Government of Mahara-
shtra, Home Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai
3) The Superintendent, Akola Central Prison,
Akola
Mr U. N. Tripathi, Advocate and Mr R. Vyas, Advocate with him for petitioner
Mr S. M. Uike, Addl. Public Prosecutor for respondents
::: Uploaded on - 02/03/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 07:06:33 :::
-2-
Coram : B. P. Dharmadhikari And V. M. Deshpande, JJ
Dated : 29th February 2016
Oral Judgment (Per B. P. Dharmadhikari, J)
1. Challenge in this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India is to the order of detention dated 11.6.2015 issued under Section 3 of
the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords, Bottleggers,
Drug Offenders, Dangerous Persons and Video Pirates Act, 1981 (for short, the
"MPDA") by respondent no.1.
2. This Court had issued rule on 24.8.2015 and it was made
returnable peremptorily on 14.9.2015. However, the matter could be heard
finally today. Respondent no. 1 Commissioner of Police, Nagpur (City) and
respondent no.2 State of Maharashtra have filed their separate Returns.
3. We have heard Advocate U. N. Tripathi with Advocate R. Vyas,
learned counsel for petitioner and Learned Additional Public Prosecutor S. M.
Uike for respondents.
4. In view of the judgment delivered by this Bench on 1.2.2016 in
Criminal Writ Petition No. 768 of 2015, we do not find it necessary to dwelve
::: Uploaded on - 02/03/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 07:06:33 :::
--3-
into several contentions which Advocate Tripathi wishes to raise and learned
Additional Public Prosecutor seeks to rebut.
5. By placing reliance upon the judgment delivered by this Bench on
1.2.2016, Advocate Tripathi submits that here there is no subjective satisfaction
recorded by respondent no. 1 that in-camera statements relied upon to base
order of detention are truthful. He states that the verification of those
statements has not been done by respondent no. 1 and hence, those statements
could not have been perused at all. Apart from the judgment dated 1.2.2016
mentioned supra, he drew support from the Division Bench judgment of this
Court in the case of Smt Vijaya Raju Gupta v. Shri R. H. Mendonca & ors
reported at 2001 ALL MR (Cri) 48 and the Division Bench judgment of this
Court delivered at Bombay in the case of Mrs Mrunali Virendra Lonare v.
Commissioner of Police & ors on 18.3.2014 in Criminal Writ Petition No. 245
of 2014. Learned counsel relies on observations of the Division Bench made in
paragraph 6 of the judgment in Mrs Mrunali's case (supra).
6. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor relies upon reply affidavits
and also produced before us in sealed condition the original in-camera
statements of the witnesses. He has placed reliance upon paragraphs 9.1, 9.2
::: Uploaded on - 02/03/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 07:06:33 :::
-4-
and 10 of the impugned order of detention.
7. The very same Authority which has passed detention order
forming subject-matter of Criminal Writ Petition No. 768 of 2015 has only
passed the order impugned in this petition.
8.
While delivering judgment on 1.2.2016 in Criminal Writ Petition
No. 768 of 2015, we have taken into account the fact that respondent no. 1 has
not verified the truthfulness of alleged in-cAmera statements; unwillingness of
witnesses to come forward to depose against the petitioner therein or then
correctness or otherwise of the exercise of verification undertaken by the
Assistant Commissioner Police. Facts
of the case in hand are identical.
9. The sealed envelopes containing two in-camera statements
produced by learned Additional Public Prosecutor were opened in the Court.
The statements show that the same are recorded by Senior Police Inspector
and thereafter have been verified by Assistant Commissioner of Police. The
verification of both these statements by the Assistant Commissioner of Police is
on the same day. However, record does not show that those statements were
seen by the Police Commissioner. Respondent no. 1 has not put his initials or
any remarks to that effect on these statements. The impugned order does not
mention that he has ascertained facts mentioned therein either from person
recording it i.e. Senior Police Inspector or from Assistant Commissioner of
Police who has verified it.
10. Thus, in this situation, we find that the above mentioned judgment
cited by Advocate Tripathi clinches the controversy.
11. Accordingly, we allow writ petition and set aside the impugned
order of detention dated 11th June 2016.
12. Rule made absolute in above terms. No costs.
V. M. DESHPANDE, J B. P. DHARMADHIKARI, J
joshi
