UBEDU RAHEMAN DAWOOD SHAIKH Vs. M N SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THROUGH this criminal writ petition preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner-detenu Ubedu Raheman Dawood Shaikh, has impugned the order dated 26-8-2000, passed by the first respondent Mr. M. N. Singh, Commissioner of Police, Brihan Mumbai, detaining him 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 ). The detention order along with the ground of detention, which are also dated 26-8-2000, was served on the petitioner-detenu on 27-8-2000 and their true copies are annexed as Exhibits 'a' and 'b' respectively to this writ petition.

(2.) A perusal of the grounds of detention (Exhibit-B) would show that the impugned order is founded on one C. R. namely C. R. No. 109 of 2000, under section 387 r/w section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, registered on the basis of a complaint dated 13-5-2000, lodged by one Jaisukh Ganger at Kurla Police Station and in-camera statements of two witnesses, namely 'a' and 'b', which were recorded on 16-6-2000 and 17-6-2000, respectively. Since, in our view, a reference to the prejudicial activities of the petitioner-detenu contained in the said C. R. and the in-camera statements is not necessary for adjudication of the solitary ground pressed by the petitioner's counsel, we are not adverting to them.

(3.) GROUND 5 (viii) has been replied to in para 14 of the return of the detaining authority. It has been emphatically denied in the said paragraph that the two in-camera statements were not true and genuine and were fabricated. It has been averred that the incidents deposed to by the two witnesses in their in-camera statements are true and genuine and he has placed reliance on them as he was satisfied, on the basis of the material placed before him, that the statements and the incidents contained therein were true and genuine. It has also been averred that the said statements were recorded by a responsible officer of the sponsoring authority and were verified by a superior officer i. e. , the A. C. P. who had made enquiries and satisfied himself about the truth contained in them and their having been recorded correctly and it was not incumbent upon the detaining authority to personally verify the said statements. It has also been mentioned in the said paragraph that the Hindi translations of the said statements were supplied to the petitioner-detenu. It is pertinent to mention that candidly and frankly, in the said paragraph, the detaining authority has admitted that due to inadvertence the date of verification remained to be incorporated in the Hindi translation but that minor variation in the translation neither vitiated the detention order nor impugned upon the detenu's fundamental right of making an effective representation.