SHANKAR RAJU SALIAN Vs. M N SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THROUGH this writ petition preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the Petitioner-detenu, Shankar Raju Salian, has impugned the order dated 10.02. 2001 passed by the 1st Respondent Mr. M. N. Singh, Commissioner of Police, Brihan Mumbai, detaining him under sub Section 1 of Section 3 of 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 M. P. D. A. Act. The detention order along with the grounds of detention, which are also dated 10.02. 2001, was served on the detenu on 14.02. 2001 and their true copies are annexed as Annexures B and C, respectively to this petition.

(2.) A perusal of the grounds of detention (annexure 'b') would show that the impugned order is founded on two C. Rs. and two in-camera statements. The two C. Rs. , which are referred to in paras 4 (a) (ii) and 4 (b) (vi) of the grounds of detention are C. R. No. 126/2000, under Sections 452, 392, 34 I. P. C. , read with 3, 25 Arms Act (subsequently section 397 was added), registered on the basis of a complaint dated 16.3.2000 lodged by Miss Malini Naidu at Chembur Police Station and C. R. No. 195/2000 under Sections 399, 402, 34 I. P. C. , r. w. 3, 25 Arms Act r. w. 37 (1) (a) of the Bombay Police Act, registered on the basis of a complaint dated 13.05. 2001 lodged by police constable Dattatraya Govind Shinde, also at Chembur Police Station. The in-camera statements, which are referred to in paras 4c (1) and 4c (ii), are of two witnesses, viz. A and B which were recorded on 24.4.2001 and 26.7.2001, respectively. A perusal of para 5 would show that the petitioner-detenu has been detained as a dangerous person under section 2 (b-1) of the M. P. D. A. Act.

(3.) MR. Tejpal learned counsel for the petitioner-detenu has urged ground 10 (k) in entirety but has only restricted himself to the facet of delay in issuance of detention order in ground 10 (t ).