SABINA SHAIKH Vs. M N SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THROUGH this writ Petition preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the Petitioner who styles herself as the wife of the detenu Mohd Siraj Jainul Abedin Shaikh, has impugned the detention order dated 19th September 2000 passed by the 1st Respondent Mr. M. N. Singh, Commissioner of Police, Brihan Mumbai, detaining the detenu 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 ). The detention order along with the grounds of detention which are also dated 19th September 2000 was served on the detenu on 20th September 2000 and their true copies are annexed as Annexures A and B respectively to this petition.

(2.) THE prejudicial activities of the detenu prompting the 1st Respondent to issue the impugned order are contained in the grounds of detention (Annexure "b" ). THEir perusal shows that the impugned order is founded on one C. R. viz C. R. No. 265/2000 under Sections 307, 324, 506 (II), 141, 143, 147, 148 and 149, I. P. C. read with Section 3, 25 and 27 of the Arms Act, registered at Vakola Police Station on the basis of a complaint dated 20th May 2000 filed by one Mohd Saale Khan and in camera statements of two witnesses viz A and B, which were recorded on 26th May 2000.

(3.) GROUND 6 (E) has been replied to in two returns viz paras 12 to 19 of the return of the detaining authority and in para 3 of the return of Mr. D. D. Daware, the Police Sub Inspector attached to Vakola Police Station, Mumbai, the Sponsoring authority. In para 12 the detaining authority has candidly asserted that the delay in issuance of the detention order has been explained and the nexus between the prejudicial activities of the detenu and the rationale of clamping a detention order on him has not been severed. In paragraphs 12 to 19 the detaining authority has explained the delay in the issuance of the detention order as under. i)The incident pertaining to CR No. 265 of 2000 occurred on 20th May 2000 and the in camera statements of witnesses were recorded on 26th May 2000. ii)The proposal for detaining the detenu was submitted on 30th May 2000 by the Sponsoring authority to the Deputy Commissioner of Police (Zone VIII) after preparing the necessary sets of documents by getting them typed, Xeroxed etc. iii)The Deputy Commissioner of Police (Zone VIII) went through the papers and put his endorsement on 31st May 2000. iv)On 1st June 2000 the papers were forwarded to the Additional Commissioner of Police (Central Region), who went through them and gave his endorsement on 1st June 2000. Since on 15th June there was Id hence during the previous few days the Additional Commissioner of Police (Central Region) was busy with discussions relating to bandobast arrangement and in between 1st June 2000 and 15th June 2000 there were many fresh detention matters, including the present one before him and 4th June 2000 and 11th June 2000 were holidays. v)The proposal was forwarded to P. C. B. C. I. D. who put his endorsement on 21. 6. 2000, 18. 6. 2000 being a holiday. Between 16. 6. 2000 and 20. 6. 2000, including the present proposals, there were a large number of other proposals before the Senior Inspector PCB, CID. vi)On 26. 6. 2000 after carefully going through the papers the Deputy Commissioner of Police gave his endorsement. In between 22. 6. 2000 and 26. 6. 2000 there were many proposals before the Deputy Commissioner of Police and 25. 6. 2000 was a holiday. vii)On 29. 6. 2000 the Deputy Commissioner of Police (Crime) to whom the papers were forwarded gave his endorsement and forwarded the papers to the detaining authority. viii)on 30. 6. 2000 all the papers were produced before the detaining authority who after carefully perusing them gave opinion on 21. 7. 2000 that it was a fit case for detention. In between 2. 7. 2000, 9. 7. 2000 and 16. 7. 2000 were holidays. ix)On 22. 7. 2000 the papers were forwarded to the Sponsoring authority for fair typing, preparing the translation of the documents and for preparing necessary set of documents. After completion of the said work the papers were received, as per the procedure, in the office of Senior Inspector of Police, D. C. B. CID, on 5. 9. 2000. x)On 6. 9. 2000 after checking all the documents and making his endorsement the Senior Inspector of Police, D. C. B. CID. , Mumbai, forwarded the papers to the Additional Commissioner of Police (Crime ). xi)On 7. 9. 2000 the Additional Commissioner of Police (Crime) went through the papers and after putting his endorsement forwarded them to the detaining authority. xii)On 8. 9. 2000 the papers were received by the detaining authority who on 19. 9. 2000 after going through the papers passed the impugned detention order, 10. 9. 2000 and 17. 9. 2000 were holidays and many proposals pending were before the detaining authority between 8. 9. 2000 and 19. 9. 2000.