AMOL @ GUDDU Vs. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE

JUDGEMENT

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

(2.) The petitioner is challenging order of detention passed under Sec. 3(2) of the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords, Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Dangerous Persons and Video Pirates, Sand Smugglers and Persons engaged in Black Marketing of Essential Commodities Act, 1981 (herein-after referred to as "the Act of 1981") issued by respondent No.1 on 08/11/2022, mainly on two grounds. Firstly, such order is passed without application of mind and on the basis of stale instances. Secondly, petitioner has been acquitted in all the matters referred in the grounds of detention, which were prior to 2016 and had no connection at all with the sole incident of the year 2022, wherein even charge-sheet is not filed against the petitioner.

(3.) Shri. Shashank Manohar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner raised only two grounds. It is his contention that detaining Authority though referred earlier cases from the year 2012 to 2015, as found in para 4 of the grounds of detention, what was placed before him was only the copies of reports in those matters. Had the Authorities placed the outcome of such matters i.e. acquittal of the petitioner in all those matters, there would have been a different conclusion than the one which is challenged in the present petition.