MOHAMED ALI MOHIDDIN SHAIKH Vs. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India impugns the order of detention bearing No. 34/PCB/DP/Zone- VI/10 dated 9th November, 2010 issued under Section 3(1) of the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slum Lords, Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Dangerous Persons and Video Pirates Act, 1981, by the Commissioner of Police, Mumbai with a further prayer for quashing and setting aside the detention order and releasing the detenu forthwith.

(2.) Such of the facts as are necessary for the decision of this petition may briefly be stated thus:

(3.) On notice of this petition being issued to the respondents the Commissioner of Police Brihan Mumbai has filed his affidavit in reply. At paragraph 5 of the affidavit in reply, it is stated that the Senior Inspector of Police of Deonar Police Station, Mumbai submitted a proposal on 9th October, 2010 for the detention of the petitioner under the M.P.D.A. Act. It is also stated that the proposal was moved through proper channel and the Deputy Commissioner of Police Zone-VI Mumbai after satisfying himself that the prejudicial activities of the detenu in which the detenu was involved, came to the conclusion that the petitioner was dangerous desperado and nobody was willing to complain against him openly due to fear of retaliation. It is further stated that the Assistant Commissioner of Police was satisfied about the truthfulness of the incident and the fear expressed by the witnesses and after verification of the incamera statements the proposal was finalized and forwarded to the Deputy Commissioner of Police Zone-VI Mumbai. It is further stated that the Deputy Commissioner of Police Zone-VI after scrutinizing the entire material placed before him forwarded the proposal through Senior Inspector of Police, PCB, CID, to the Deputy Commissioner of Police (Preventive) Mumbai on 14th October, 2010 and thereafter the proposal was forwarded to the Commissioner of Police Brihan Mumbai on 28th October, 2010. It is also stated in the affidavit in reply that after carefully considering and scrutinizing the material, the deponent was subjectively satisfied that the activities of the said person were prejudicial to the maintenance of public order and that he was dangerous person within the meaning of the M.P.D.A. Act. The Commissioner of Police was further satisfied that the said person was acting in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order and it was necessary to detain him under the said Act with a view to prevent him from acting in such a manner in future. The affidavit further states that the detaining authority was satisfied about the truthfulness and genuineness of the said material as well as the statements of witnesses and after scrutinizing the entire proposal forwarded it to the Joint Commissioner of Police (Crime) for compliance on 3rd November, 2010. The Joint Commissioner of Police (Crime) thereafter forwarded it to the Deputy Commissioner of Police (Preventive) for preparing of set of documents and scrutiny and translation of grounds of detention and other related documents on 8th November, 2010 and thereafter the detention order came to be issued on 9th November, 2010. It is further denied that neither the name of the area nor that of the locality was mentioned in the two incamera statements of witness A and B.