VIJAY HARISHCHANDRA PODDAR Vs. R H MENDONCA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THROUGH this petition preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the Petitioner - detenu impugns the detention order dated 29th June 1999 passed by the 1st Respondent ,mr. R. H. Mendonca, Commissioner of Police, Brihan Mumbai, detaining the detenu under sub section (1) of section 3 of the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords, Bootleggers, Drug Offenders and Dangerous Persons Act,' 1981 (No. LV of 1981) (Amendment 1996), (also referred to as "the MPDA Act" ). The detention order along with the grounds of detention also dated 29th June 1999 was served on the Petitioner - detenu on 3.7.1999. True copies of the detention order and the grounds of detention are annexed as Exhibits "a" and "c" respectively to this Petition.

(2.) A perusal of grounds of detention would show that the impugned detention order is founded on one C. R. viz. C. R. No. 220 of 98 under section 302/307/34 IPC read with section 3 (25) of the Arms Act registered at Tilak Nagar Police Station on 7.10.1998 on the basis of a complaint filed by Suresh Hegde and two in camera statements of witnesses A and B respectively. Details pertaining to the C. R. are contained in ground 4 (a) and 4 (a-i) of the grounds of detention. In short they are as under: The informant Suresh Hegde is a resident of Padmini Building, room no. 1, Pestom Sagar Road no. 1, Chembur, Bombay 89. Bala Kotian is his younger brother. On 7.10.1998 at about5 p. m. while Suresh Hegde was sitting at the cash counter of Navgarh Hotel, of which he was the Manager, the detenu and his associate Anil @ Andya Nandoskar entered the said hotel and stood behind Bala Kotian who was also there. Anil @ Andya Nandoskar fired at Bala Kotian from a pistol and the detenu at him with a revolver. Thereafter they ran away. Bala Kotian fell on the ground and his friend Sudhir Kumar who was also in the hotel at that time sustained injury on the wrist of his right hand. Thereafter Santosh Hegde lodged the said C. R. 2 A. The statements of witnesses A and B are as under: Witness "a" in his statement recorded on 10.5.1999 stated that he knew the detenu and his associates Bandyamama as notorious criminals affiliated to Chhota Rajan gang. One day at about3 p. m. in the second week of October 1998, the detenu and his associates approached him at his business premises and demanded Rs. 3 lacs and when he pleaded his inability to make the payment immediately the detenu's associate Bandyamama slapped him and the detenu pointed a revolver towards him and threatened him saying that he required the money immediately and in case he did not pay he would see him. Thereafter the detenu and his associates assaulted him. The witness shouted for help but no one came to his rescue. The adjoining shopkeepers closed their shops and ran away helter-skelter. Witness "b" stated that one day at about9. 30 p. m. some time in the first week of October 1998 while he was carrying his business the detenu and his associate Bandyamama, who were members of Chhota Rajan gang came and demanded Rs. 2000/- and when he showed his inability to pay the same Bandyamama took a glass jar and broke it by throwing it on a wall. Seeing this the customers ran away. Thereafter Bandyamama damaged articles in the hotel and the detenu pointed a revolver at him, abused him and said that he should take out money immediately: otherwise he would be killed. He shouted for help but nobody came to his rescue and the adjoining shopkeepers closed their shops.

(3.) IN our view a perusal of para 19 of the return of the detaining authority unequivocally shows that there has been no delay or latches in the issuance of the detention order. It would be useful to refer to the decision of the Supreme Court reported in AIR 1982 SC. Page 8 Hemlata Kantilal Shah Vs. State of Maharashtra wherein at page 13 the Supreme Court has observed as under: " Delay ipso facto in passing an order of detention after an incident is not fatal to the detention of a person, for, in certain cases delay may be unavoidable and reasonable. What is required by law is that the delay must be satisfactorily explained by the detaining authority. "