MAHENDRA PRABHAKAR GAIKWAD Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THROUGH this writ petition preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner-detenu Mahendra Prabhakar Gaikwad has impugned the order dated 16-3-2001 passed by the second 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) (hereinafter referred to as the M. P. D. A. Act ). The detention order along with the grounds of detention which are also dated 16-3-2001 was served on the petitioner-detenu on 28-9-2001 and their true copies have been annexed as Annexures A and B 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. namely C. R. No. 144 of 2001 under sections 392, 397, 342, 427, 34 I. P. C. read with sections 3, 25 of the Arms Act (subsequently section 216 (a) I. P. C. was added) registered on the basis of the complaint dated 8-6-2000 lodged by Atul Sanghvi at V. P. Road Police Station, and C. R. No. 55 of 2000 under sections 399, 402 I. P. C. r/w 4, 25 of the Arms Act registered on the basis of a complaint dated 19-6-2000 lodged by Police Constable Surendra Rajaram Pol at D. C. B. C. I. D. Unit, Ghatkopar, Bombay and in-camera statements of two witnesses, namely A and B which were recorded on 28-9-2000. Since, in our view, a reference to the prejudicial activities of the petitioner detenu contained in the said C. Rs and in camera statements is not necessary for the disposal of this writ petition, we are not adverting to them.

(3.) WE have heard learned Counsel for the parties. Although in this writ petition, Ms. D. Suvarna Rajesh learned Counsel for the petitioner has pleaded a large number of grounds, numbered as grounds 8-A to 8-H, but since in our view, this petition deserves to succeed on Ground No. 8-C alone, we are not adverting to the other grounds of challenge raised in the petition.