SANDESH Vs. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has prayed for setting aside the detention order bearing No.PCB/DET/26/2024 dtd. 16/2/2024 issued under 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 (for short 'M.P.D.A. Act'). The petitioner was detained by the order passed by the Commissioner of Police, Pimpri Chinchwad i.e. respondent No.1 on 16/2/2024. On the same day Committal order was passed directing the petitioner to be detained in Yerwada Central Prison,Yerwada,Pune. The petitioner was served with grounds of detention dtd. 16/2/2024. In Paragraph-3, thirteen registered offences right from the year 2013 to 2022 at various police stations viz. Pimpri, Sangavi, Wakad and Nigade were mentioned. Certain preventive actions taken in the past are also mentioned, however, respondent No.1 had specifically mentioned in Paragraph 3.2 that he had not relied on the petitioner's earlier record of crime. The main material against the petitioner on the basis of which the detention order was passed was mentioned in Paragraph 4.1 and 5. That pertains to C.R.No.202/2023 at Wakad police station and C.R. No.867/2023 at Sangola police station, Solapur. Besides these two registered offences there was reference to two in-camera statements mentioned in Para 6.1 and 6.2 in respect of instances dtd. 13/8/2023 and 3/9/2023.

(2.) It is not necessary to refer to these allegations and grounds of detention because the learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on the solitary ground of delay in considering the representation made by the petitioner. She submitted that on this ground alone the detention order is liable to be set aside. In this context the following dates are important. The petitioner had prepared a representation dtd. 14/10/2024. It was received by the Jail Superintendent on 16/10/2024. The Jail Superintendent had forwarded it to the Additional Chief Secretary, Home Department, Special Branch (3-B), Government of Maharashtra, Mantralaya, Mumbai through mail dtd. 16/10/2024. It was received in the Mantralaya by hand through Yerwada Central Prison, Pune on 29/10/2024. After that it was finally decided on 5/12/2024. Learned Counsel, therefore, submitted that there was delay in various parts. Initially there was delay of 14 days from 16/10/2024 to 29/10/2024 for sending the representation from Yerwada Central Prison to Mantralaya. Thereafter, for about 36 days nothing was done about the representation and it was not considered. This delay has remained unexplained and, therefore, it has violated the right of the petitioner under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India. Hence, the detention order is liable to be set aside. There is violation of Article 22(5). She submitted that merely affording opportunity is not enough but that representation has to be decided at the earliest.

(3.) The learned APP appearing for the respondents tried to justify the delay in considering the representation. It was not inadvertent and not deliberate and, therefore, the detenu who is a dangerous person may not get benefit out of this lapse. We have considered these submissions.