ANIL ALIAS ANTYA Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A. B. CHAUDHARI, J. Rule. By consent heard forthwith.

(2.) By the present petition, the petitioner has put to challenge the order of his detention in District Jail, Buldana, made by respondent No. 2 on 1-10-2007 under the provisions of The Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of slumlords, Bootleggers, Drug-offenders and Dangerous Persons Act, 1981 (for short the Act) so also the order of confirmation thereof dated 15-11-2007 made by the 1st respondent.

(3.) Briefly stated, the P. S. O. Police station Buldana initiated a proposal with respondent No. 2 for taking action against the petitioner under the provisions of the said Act on the ground that about 20 cognizable and 10 non-cognizable offences were registered against the petitioner and the petitioner is a violent dreaded criminal in the habit of assaulting common people and creating terror. The last offence that was indicated as a prejudicial activity was committed by him on 18-4-2007 in Crime No. 84 of 2007 under section 392 of Indian Penal code. Acting on the said proposal, the 2nd respondent made an order on 1-10-2007 ordering detention of the petitioner under the said Act. The order came to be served and executed on the petitioner on the same day, namely 1-10-2007. Thereafter on 5-10-2007 the respondent No. 1, as required under section 3 of the act, approved the order dated 1-10-2007. On 26-10-2007 the petitioner made a representation which was addressed to the Advisory Board, Govt. of maharashtra, Mumbai, and it is stated that in fact the said representation was tendered by the petitioner during the course of hearing before the Advisory board. The Detaining Authority had also relied on the statements of witnesses recorded in camera on 15-8-2007 and 17-8-2007. On reference being made to the advisory Board on 11-10-2007 the Advisory Board had rendered its opinion on 13-11-2007 that was received by respondent No. 1 on 13-11-2007. The same was then considered by the 2nd respondent on 14-11-2007 and the impugned order of confirmation was issued by the 1st respondent.