MEHMOOD SHAHJAD KHAN Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner who is the mother of one Mehmood Shahjad Khan @ Pathan has taken exception to the order of detention dated 1st October, 2012 passed by the Commissioner of Police in purported exercise of powers under Sub-Section (2) of Section 3 of the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords, Bootleggers, Drug-Offenders and Dangerous Persons and Video Pirates Act, 1981 (hereinafter referred to as "the said Act of 1981") against the said Mehmood. Various grounds of challenge are agitated by the petitioner. The first ground is failure to place vital documents before the Detaining Authority. The second ground is of non-application of mind in as much as though the power to pass an order of detention has been conferred under Sub-Section (1) of Section 3 of the said Act of 1981, the Detaining Authority has purportedly exercised power under Sub-Section (2) of Section 3 of the said Act of 1981 which is only the power of delegation of the State Government. Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner pointed out that in the grounds of detention, the Detaining Authority has relied upon the in-camera statements of two witnesses dated 18th August, 2012 and 23rd August, 2012 recorded by the Senior Inspector of Police, Mumbra Police Station. He pointed out that it is alleged in the grounds of detention that the in-camera statements were verified by the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Kalwa Division. The ground of challenge is that in the compilation of documents supplied to the detenu, though copies of the in-camera statements have been included, the verification part thereof does not contain the name and the designation of the officer who has allegedly verified the in-camera statements. He submitted that a failure to supply a proper copies of the in-camera statements duly verified to the detenue itself vitiates the order of detention. He also pointed out that the verification has been purportedly recorded on 28th August, 2012 whereas the proposal for detention was submitted by the Sponsoring Authority on 27th August, 2012.

(2.) Learned APP relied upon the affidavits-in-reply filed by the Sponsoring Authority and Detaining Authority supporting the impugned order. Learned APP also pointed out the prejudicial activities alleged against the said Mehmood and submitted that no interference is called for.

(3.) We have carefully considered the submissions. We have perused the grounds of detention supplied to the petitioner's son. Perusal of the grounds of detention supplied to him shows that a specific reliance has been placed by Detaining Authority on the in-camera statements of witnesses A and B. In clause (6) of the grounds it is stated that the in-camera statements were recorded by the Senior Inspector of Police of Mumbra police station and the same were duly verified by the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Kalwa Division. Perusal of the affidavit of the Detaining Authority, and in particular paragraph 9 shows that the Detaining Authority has relied upon the in-camera statements of the two witnesses which were allegedly verified. In response to the ground (h) in the Writ Petition, which deals with the infirmities in the copies of the in-camera statements supplied to the petitioner's son, the Detaining Authority has stated thus: