HANIF KARIM LALUWALE Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of learned counsel for the parties.

(2.) Upon careful perusal of impugned detention order, we find that learned counsel for the petitioner is right in his submission that when the Investigating Officer did not think it fit to arrest the petitioner in any of the core crimes which have been considered while passing the detention order, it is quite strange to find that preventive detention of such a person is necessary.

(3.) Shri S.S. Doifode, learned APP submits that there was an intimation given by the Investigating Officer to the petitioner under Sec. 41(A-1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short "Cr.P.C. ") and therefore, it cannot be said that no control whatsoever was exercised upon the petitioner. He also submits that since this control was found to be inadequate, in view of what is stated by confidential witnesses, it became necessary that the petitioner was preventively detained by invoking the provisions of (Maharashtra Prevention Dangerous Activities of Slumlords, Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Dangerous Persons, Video Pirates, Sand Smugglers and Persons engaged in Black Marketing of Essential Commodities Act, 1981 (for short the "MPDA Act, 1981 ") and as such nothing wrong could be found in issuing intimation under Sec. 41-A (1) of the Cr.P.C.