KISHAN VALIYA PATIL Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petition has been filed under Article 226 of the constitution and section 491 of the Criminal Procedure Code in order to challenge an order of detention passed against the petitioner under the Preventive Detention Act, 1950, by the Commissioner of Police, Greater Bombay (respondent No. 3) and confirmed by the State of maharastra (respondent No. 1 ). The impunged order was passed on 15th June 1965, and it stated that the Commissioner of Police was satisfied that it was necessary to detain the petitioner with a view to preventing him from acting in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. On the same day on which the order of detention was communicated to the petitioner, the Grounds on which that order was made were also communicated to him as required by section 7 (1) of the Preventive Detention Act. Those grounds were as follows:

(2.) AT 9 p. m. on the 2nd May 1965, you approached a woman at Mahadeobhai Desai Road Kandivli (East), and stopped her. You accused her that she was going to your locality for procuring young girls for the purpose of prostitution. She was alone. You caught hold of her and began to press breasts. She shouted for help and managed to free herself from your hands. While she was going away you shouted at her and threatened her with dire consequences if she reported this incident to the Police.

(3.) IN support of his contention that the Commissioner of Police did not apply his mind to the facts of the case before making the detention order, the petitioner made several allegations which were designed to show that he was required to complain against a certain. Sub-Inspector of Police and that by way of retaliation he was involved by the police in a number of false cases. The Commissioner of Police, however, has filed an affidavit in which he has denied that he failed to apply his mind to the facts of the case before making the order of detention and has stated that he made the order after taking into consideration the reports of various responsible police officers and other material relating to the activities of the petitioner. He denied that the petitioner's complaint against the Sub-Inspector of Police had any bearing whatsoever on the detention order. In view of the conents of this affidavit, we do not see any adequate reason to hol that the impugned order of detention was passed by the Commissioner of Police without applying his mind to all the relevant facts.