SWAPNIL PRAKASH LADDHA Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned Counsel Mr. S.A. Saoji for the petitioner and learned Additional Public Prosecutor Mr. N.R. Rode for the respondents. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith by consent of learned Counsel for the parties.

(2.) Perused the impugned order. The order under Section 56 of the Bombay Police Act can be passed by the District Magistrate or the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, as the case may be, whenever it appears (a) that the movements or acts of any person are causing or calculated to cause alarm, danger or harm to person or property or (b) that there are reasonable grounds for believing that such person is engaged or is about to be engaged in the commission of an offence involving force or violence or an offence punishable under Chapters XII, XVI or XVII of the Indian Penal Code or in the abetment of any such offence and when in the opinion of such officer witnesses are not willing to come forward to give evidence in public against such person by reason of apprehension on their part as regards the safety of their person or property or (c) that there are reasonable grounds for believing that such person is acting or is about to act (1) in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order as defined in the Maharashtra Prevention of Communal, Antisocial and Other Dangerous Activities Act, 1980, or (2) in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of supplies of commodities essential to the community as defined in the Explanation to sub-section (1) of section 3 of the Prevention of Black marketing and Maintenance of Supplies of Essential Commodities Act, 1980--------etc."

(3.) After having gone through the order, it is not clear as to under what clause of the above stated clauses the case of the petitioner falls. The Sub-Divisional Magistrate has not recorded his subjective satisfaction that it is essential to pass an order under Section 56 of the Bombay Police Act for any of the reasons stated herein above. It appears from the impugned order that the Sub-Divisional Magistrate has passed the order only because the Sub-Divisional Police Officer had come to a particular conclusion. It is needless to state here that what is relevant is not satisfaction of the enquiry officer, but satisfaction of the officer empowered to pass final order.