HARILAL BANSU KEWAT Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner Harilal Bansu Kewat is detained by virtue of an order dated 21st April, 1982 passed by the Commissioner of Police, Greater Bombay in exercise of the powers conferred under sub-section (1) read with Clause (b) of sub-section (2) of section 3 of the Prevention of Black Marketing and Maintenance of Supplies of Essential Commodities Act, 1980 with a view to Preventing the petitioner from acting any manner prejudical to them maintenance of supplies of commodities essential to the community.

(2.) The detention order is passed on the basis of recovery of cement bags from the possession of the petitioner on three different occasions in three different raids carried out by the Crime Branch (Control), C.I.D., Bombay. In the first raid 78 gunny bags each containing 50 kgs cement were recovered from the possession of the petitioner from a wooden hut at Sardar Nagar, Sion Koliwada, Transit Camp, Pipe Line, behind Santoshi Mata Temple, Bombay on 29th April, 1980. On the second occasions 10 bags watch containing 50 kgs cement were recovered from the possession of the petitioner in the raid carried out on 21-10-1980 on a temporary structure bearing Municipal No. C-183 Sardar Nagar, Mukundrao Ambedkar Road, Sion Koliwada, Raoli Camp, Bombay. In the third raid carried out on 30-3-1982, 22 bags of cement were recovered from the possession of the petitioner from an unauthorised structure situated next to Jayanti Grain Stores, Raoli Camp, Sion Koliwada, Bombay. As the petitioner had no licence to carry on business as stockists as contemplated by Clause (3) of the Maharashtra Cement (Licensing and Control) Order, 1973 nor a licence to acquire cement as contemplated by Clause 15 of the said order and the quantity in his possession exceeded the maximum prescribed under Clause 8 of the said order, the petitioner was prosecuted for offences under Clauses 3, 8 and 15 of the aforesaid Maharashtra Cement (Licensing and Control) Order read with section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 in respect of each of the raids carried out in the premises mentioned above. The petitioner was interrogated during the investigation of all the three cases and when questioned about the source of the cement found in his possession the petitioner in his statement in the first case viz. C.R. No. 78/80 stated that he had purchased the cement, which according to him was sweeping cement, from unknown lorry drivers. During the interrogation in the second case viz., C.R. No. 186/80 lodged in respect of the raid carried out on 21-10-1980 the petitioner admitted that he was conducting a business of selling bricks, sand and loose cement to the needy customers in the locality and that he was purchasing loose cement from the motor lorry drivers who used to deliver cement bags to the permit holders.

(3.) All the documents pertaining to the investigation in the three cases including the statements of the petitioner were placed before the Detaining Authority and on the basis of that material the Detaining Authority arrived at the following conclusion :-