NOOR MOHAMED KHAN Vs. M N SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THROUGH this criminal writ petition, preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner, who styles himself as the father of the detenu Nazir Arif Noor Mohammed Khan alias Nazir Mota, has impugned the order dated 26-3-2001, passed by the first respondent, Shri. M. N. Singh, 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), hereinafter referred to as the "mpda Act." The detention order along with the grounds of detention, which are also dated 26-3-2001, was served on the detenu on 27-3-2001 and their true copies are annexed as Annexures 'a' and 'b' respectively to this petition.

(2.) A perusal of the grounds of detention (Annexure 'b') would show that the impugned detention order is founded on one C. R. , namely, C. R. No. 343/2000, under section 384 of the Indian Penal Code, registered on the basis of a complaint dated 20-12-2000, filed by one Shri. Jarnail Singh at Pydhonie Police Station and in-camera statements of two witnesses, namely, 'a' and 'b' which were recorded on 29-12-2000 and 30-12-2000 respectively. Since, in our view, a reference to the prejudicial activities of the detenu, contained in the aforesaid C. R. and the in-camera statements, is not necessary for the decision of this writ petition, we are not adverting to them.

(3.) MR. U. N. Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioner strenuously urged that on account of the aforesaid discrepancy in the translation, the detenu could have been misled or confused. He contended that the detenu, who on the own showing of the detaining authority, in his return, has studied upto First Year Bachelor of Arts (F. Y. B. A.), could have very well opened the MPDA Act; perused section 3 (3) thereof; since the said provision does not spell out that he had a right to make a representation to the Commissioner, he could have been confused and misled; and for all what one knows could have decided not to make a representation to the Commissioner of Police.