RAJU JAGDISH TALL Vs. M N SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) VISHNU SAHAI, J. Through this criminal writ petition, preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner, who describes himself as the brother-in-law of the detenu Naresh Singh s/o Sumer Singh Thakur, has impugned the detention order dated16-4-2001, passed by the first respondent, Mr. M. N. Singh, Commissioner of Police, Brihan Mumbai, detaining the detenu under sub-section (1) of Section3 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 dated16-4-2001, was served on the detenu on19-4-2001 and their true copies are annexed as Annexures 'a' and 'b' respectively to this petition.

(2.) A perusal of the impugned order would show that it is founded on two C. Rs. namely C. R. No. 343/2000, under sections 395, 397 and 452 of the Indian Penal Code r/w Sections 3 and 25 of the Arms Act, registered on the basis of a complaint dated19-10-2000, lodged by one Iqbal Abdul Pagekar at Byculla Police Station and C. R. No. 324/2000, under sections 392 and 397 r/w section34 of the Indian Penal Code, registered on the basis of a complaint dated12-10-2000, lodged by one Dineshkumar Dalpatram Trivedi at Byculla Police Station, and one L. A. C. , namely L. A. C. No. 3848/2000, under section124 of the Bombay Police Act, registered on15-11-2000. Since, in our view, a reference to the prejudicial activities of the detenu contained in the aforesaid C. Rs and the L. A. C. is not necessary for the adjudication of ground 6 (C), pleaded in the petition on which ground alone, in our judgment, this petition would succeed, we are not adverting to them.

(3.) MR. D. S. Mhaispurkar, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor, urged that although the discrepancy mentioned in the preceding paragraph is there, but it would not enure to the advantage of the detenu because both in the original detention order in English as also in its Hindi translation it has been mentioned that since the detenu was acting in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order, it was imperative to detain the detenu under sub-section (1) of section3 of the MPDA Act.