ANWARI BEGUM GULZARKHAN Vs. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a petition filed by the wife of the detenu asking that the detenu should be released. The detenu was arrested at 7 p. m. on March 9, 1948, and the detention order was served on him at 10 a. m. on March 11, 1948, together with a notice under Section 3 of the Bombay Public Security Measures Act, 1947, specifying the grounds and particulars of his detention.

(2.) IT has been contended by counsel for the petitioner that the grounds are vague and outside the ambit of the Act, with the result that the detention order is bad in law. He has analysed the grounds into five specific grounds, viz. (1) that the detenu is a known mawali of Falkland Road locality, (2) that he is a trafficker in opium, (3) that there are a number of mawalis under him, (4) that he extorts money from prostitutes and (5) that he is also responsible for stabbing cases on Falkland Road. He has contended that grounds Nos. 1 and 3 that he is a known mawali and that there are a number of mawalis under him are vague inasmuch as the word "mawali" has no definite or certain connotation. He has also contended that being a trafficker in opium and extorting money from prostitutes, howsoever reprehensible these acts may be, are certainly not acts within the ambit of the Act which is intended only to detain persons who are acting in a manner prejudicial to the public safety, the maintenance of public order or tranquillity of the province or any part thereof. As regards the last ground, he has contended that there is nothing in the notice under Section 3 of the Act to show that he was acting in that manner at or about the time when the order for detention was made against the detenu. These are the grounds on which the detention order has been challenged.

(3.) IN the case before me, I have got the affidavit of Vishnu Gopal Kanetkar made by him on April 7, 1948, wherein he says in para. 2 thereof : On 9th March 1948 the detenu was directed to be arrested in view of the information and matters relating to the detenu which had been placed before me on full consideration of which I was satisfied that he was acting in a manner prejudicial to the public safety and tranquillity of Greater Bombay. Accordingly the detenu was apprehended and detained. These facts are not challenged by counsel for the petitioner. As a matter of fact even though I hinted to him that it was open to him to require the deponent of this affidavit Vishnu Gopal Kanetkar to be present in Court in order that he may cross-examine him as to the correctness of the statements which he had made in this para. 2 of his affidavit, no such application was made to me by counsel for the petitioner, with the result that I am entitled to take the statements made by Vishnu Gopal Kanetkar in para. 2 of his affidavit as correct. Taking them as correct, I am also bound to come to the conclusion that as a matter of fact before the order for arrest and detention of the detenu was made by him on March 9, 1948, he had materials before him on which he was satisfied that the detenu was acting in a manner prejudicial to the public safety and tranquillity of Greater Bombay and that the detenu was arrested in accordance with the order which he passed on March 9, 1948. What followed was merely putting on record the order which he had orally made on March 9,1948. What is stated in the stereotyped terms of the order dated March 10, 1948, that he, the Deputy Commissioner of Police, "hereby directs" does not go counter to the statements which he has made in his affidavit and does not detract from the position which has been taken up on behalf of respondent No.1 in the arguments of this petition before me.