DASHRATH SAGUM GHADIGAVKAR Vs. COMMISIONER OF POLICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) -THE Commissioner of Police, Thane, by order dated October 23, 1989 passed in exercise of powers conferred by Section 3 (2) of the National Security Act, 1980 directed detention of the petitioner with a view to preventing him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. The order was served on the same day and the grounds of detention were furnished.

(2.) THE grounds, inter alia, recite that the detenu is a desperate goonda indulging in violent and terrorising activities. The detenu and his associates always carry deadly weapons, like knife, swords, hockey sticks etc. The detenue is indulging in assaults and extortion of money from businessmen by using threating tactics and creating an atmosphere of fear and panic at Waldhuni add surrounding areas in kalyan town. The activities which are noted from the recent past incidents are set out from paragraph 3-A onwards. The first incident is dated August 2, 1988 at about 10. 30 p. m. when the detenu threatened Mohd. Bux Jamal Khan pathan while he was returning to his residence. The detenu and his associates were armed with deadly weapons and caused serious injuries on the neck, both legs and wrist of Pathan for refusal to pay money as per the demand. The result of the incident created a sense of fear and panic in the minds of the residents. The detenu was arrested on August 3, 1988 and was charged for offence under Sections 147, 148, 149 and 307 of the indian Penal Code, The detenu was released on bail by the Sessions court on September 6, 1989. The grounds further recite that immediately after the release, the detenu re-started his activities and on September 15, 1989 at about 5 p. m. threatened one Bharat Mone with the help of his associates. A complaint was lodged by Bharat Mone at Kalyan Police Station under Section 506 (2) and under Section 34 of the Indan Penal Code. While bharat Mone was registering his Complaint, the police received an anonymous telephone complaint that the detenu and his associates were threatening the members of the public at the point of weapon. The Police Officer Kumbhar immediately rushed to the site and arrested the detenu and his associates. After completion of the investigation of the complaint of Mone, the detenu was charge-sheeted but was released on bail by Judicial Magistrate on September 6, 1989. The grounds further recite that an anonymous application was received by the police authorities on September 16, 1989 complaining about the desperate activities of the detenu and his associates. While making enquiries, three witnesses came forward and were willing to make statement on condition that their names would not be disclosed. The statements were recorded in camera. The first witness deposed about the threats given by the detenu on September 15, 1989 at about 3 p. m. The second witness deposed about the incident, dated September 10, 1989 at about 5 p. m. when the detenu and his associates forcibly demanded money. The third witness deposed about the incident dated September 12, 1989 at about 9. 30 p. m. when the detenu and his associates waylaid the witness and demanded Rs. 1,000. The detaining authority on perusal of this material was satisfied that the detenu was indulging in violent ana territorising activities which are prejudicial to the maintenance of public order in Waldhuni and its surrounding areas and thereupon passed the order of detention.

(3.) SHRI Mundargi, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the detenu, has raised four contentions to challenge the legality of the order. The first submission of the learned counsel is that the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority is based on generality as set out in paragraph 2 of the grounds of detention. We are unable to find any merit in this contention. As mentioned hereinabove, in paragraph 2 of the grounds of detention, it is mentioned that the detenu is a desperate goonda indulging in violent and terrorising activities. This paragraph is merely a summary of the material available with the detaining authority. The paragraph itself points out that the summary is gathered from the activities of the detenu which are noted from the recent past incidents as set out in paragraph 3 onwards. The complaint of Shri Mundargi that paragraph 2 records the conclusion and that is without any material is not correct. The summary in paragraph 2 is given on the basis of incidents referred to in subsequent paragraphs. The first contention of the learned counsel is, therefore, required to be turned down.