MUKESH PRAKASH BHALERAO Vs. DISTRICT MAGISTRATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition is filed to challenge the order dtd. 23/1/2023 passed by respondent no. 1-District Magistrate, Jalgaon, in the exercise of powers under sub-sec. (2) of Sec. 3 of The Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords,Bootleggers, Drug-Offenders, Dangerous Persons, Video Pirates, Sand Smugglers and Persons Engaged in Black-Marketing of Essential Commodities Act, 1981 ('MPDA' Act).

(2.) The detaining authority in the said order of detention has referred to the list of offences registered at various police stations of Bhusawal Taluka of Jalgaon district against the petitioner. The detaining authority has also referred to orders of taking preventive action by Bhusawal police station, district Jalgaon against the petitioner as well as has referred to details of externment proceedings initiated by Bhusawal police station, district Jalgaon against the petitioner. Thus, by referring to cases registered against the petitioner and his associates, the detaining authority has recorded that the petitioner and his associates carry dangerous weapons, thereby creating terror and fear in the minds of the public and committing various offences as mentioned in the sequence described in Chapters XVI and XVII of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The detaining authority has, in detail referred to allegations against the petitioner in various cases registered against the petitioner, a list of which is mentioned in the detention order. The detaining authority has further reproduced the gist of in-camera statements of two witnesses and has held that considering the criminal activities of the petitioner, he falls within the definition of a dangerous person as defined in the said MPDA Act. Thus, by referring to various cases registered against the petitioner and the gist of the in-camera statement of two witnesses, the detaining authority has passed the order of detention against the petitioner.

(3.) The petition raises various grounds to challenge the order of detention; however, the learned counsel for the petitioner has pressed into service the ground raised in clause (c) of paragraph 5 of the petition, which reads as under: