TMI Blog1992 (1) TMI 346X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1)n of the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords, Bootleggers and Drug Offenders Act, 1981 (hereinafter referred to as the `Act', The appellant had questioned the detention of her husband through Criminal Writ-Petition No. 597 of 1991 before the Bombay High Court on carious grounds. The High Court, however, did not find any merit in the challenge and being of the opinion that there was no infirmity in the order of detention dismissed the Writ-Petition. Appellant has filed an appeal by Special Leave against the High Court judgment and has also questioned the order of detention through a petition under Article 32 of the Constitution. The facts leading to the detention of the detenu as reflected in the grounds of detention are as follows: 3. The Police personnel, attached to Matunga Police Station, where maintaining a watch on vehicles passing near the fish market with a view to check transportation of illicit liquor. On 9th September 1991, a black Fiat Car, bearing registration no. BLD 1674, was seen coming from the direction of Chembur at about 0845 hrs. The police party signalled the driver to a stop. Instead of stopping the car, the detenu, who was dri ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g the investigation of the case, the police recorded statements of four witnesses who were, however, willing to make statements only on the condition of anonymity, fearing retaliation from the detenu in case they deposed against him. Keeping in view the activities of the detenu and the fact that he had been enlarged on bail, the detaining authority on being satisfied that unless an order of detention was made against the detenu, he was likely to indulge in activities prejudicial to the maintenance of `public order' in future also, made an order of detention on 26th February 1991. The grounds of detention were served on the detenu. The order of the detention was confirmed by the State Government after considering the report of the Advisory Board constituted under Section 12(1) of the Act. The order of detention was questioned before the High Court, as already noticed through Criminal Writ Petition No. 597 of 1991, unsuccessfully. 5. Two basic arguments have been raised by Dr. Chitale before us to question the order of detention. The thrust of the first argument is that the activities of the detenu could be said to be prejudicial only to the maintenance of law and order ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s going to colleges and schools are in constant danger and fear. Women going for their ordinary business are afraid of being waylaid and assaulted. The activity of this man in its essential quality is not different from the act of the other man but in its potentiality and in its effect upon the public tranquility there is a vast difference. The act of the man who molests the girls in lonely places causes a disturbance in the even tempo of living which is the first requirement of public order. He disturbs the society and the community. His act makes all the women apprehensive of their honour and he can be said to be causing disturbance of public order and not merely committing individual actions which may be taken note of by the criminal prosecution agencies. [p.100] 9. A Constitution Bench in Madhu Limaye v. Ved Murti, [1970] 3 SCC 738 again dealt with the question and it was observed: In our judgment, the expression `in the interest of public order' in the Constitution is capable of taking within itself not only those acts which disturb the security of the State or act within order publique as described but also certain acts which disturb public transquillity or are br ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in a specified locality where the act is alleged to have been committed. Thus it is the degree and extent of the reach of the act upon the society which is vital for considering the question whether a man has committed only a breach of law and order or has acted in a manner likely to cause disturbance to public order. [pp. 686-87] 13. It is not necessary to multiply the authorities on this point. 14. From the law laid by this Court, as noticed above, it follows that it is the degree and extent of the each of the objectionable activity upon the society which is vital for considering the question whether a man has committed only a breach of `law and order' or has acted in a manner likely to cause disturbance to `public order'. It is the potentiality of the act to disturb the even tempo of life of the community which makes it prejudicial to the maintenance of `public order'. Whenever an order of detention is questioned, the courts apply these tests to find out whether the objectionable activities upon which the order of detention is grounded fall under the classification of being prejudicial to public order or belong to the category of being prejudicial only to ` ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sub-Section (4) of Section 3 of that Act, his activities as a bootlegger had the potential of affecting adversely or were likely to affect adversely, the maintenance of `public order' and on the peculiar facts of the case, it was found that the alleged activities of the detenu did not affect `public order' but created only a law and order problem. Dr. Chitale then placed reliance on State of U.P. v. Hari Shankar Tewari, [1987] 2 SCC 490; Ahmedhussain Shaikhhussain v. Commissioner of Police, Ahmedabad and Anr. [1989] 4 SCC 751; T. Devaki v. Government of Tamil Nadu Ors., [1990] 2 SCC 456; Ashok Kumar v. Delhi Administration and Ors., [1982] 2 SCC 403; but none of these judgments lay down tests different than the ones which we have culled out from the judgments of this court referred to earlier. Those cases were decided on their peculiar facts. The courts were very much alive to the conceptual difference between activities prejudicial to law and order and those prejudicial to public order and since on facts it was found that the activities of the detenu were not prejudicial to `public order', the orders of detention were quashed. 17. Crime is a revolt against the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... intenance of `public order'. Section 2(a) defines the meaning of the expression acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order and reads as follows: acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order means (i) in the case of a slumlord, when he is engaged, or is making preparations for engaging, in any of his activities as a slumlord, which affect adversely, or are likely to affect adversely, the maintenance of public order; (ii) in the case of a bootlegger, when he is engaged, or is making preparations for engaging, in any of his activities as a bootlegger, which affect adversely, or are likely to affect adversely, the maintenance of public order; (iii) in the case of drug-offender, when he is engaged or is making preparations for engaging, in any of his activities as drug-offender, which affect adversely, or are likely to affect adversely, the maintenance of public order; Explanation: For the purpose of this clause (a), public order shall be deemed to have been affected adversely, or shall be deemed likely to be affected adversely, inter alia, if any of the activities of any of the persons referred to in this clause, di ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he law enforcement agencies. The fear psychosis created by the detenu in the witnesses was aimed at letting the crime go unpunished which has the potential of the society, and not merely some individual, to suffer. The activities of the detenu, therefore, squarely fall within the deeming provision enacted in the explanation of Section 2(a) of the Act, and it therefore, follows as a logical consequence that the activities of the detenu were not merely prejudicial to the maintenance of `law and order' but were prejudicial to the maintenance of public order . The first argument raised by Dr. Chitale against the order of detention, therefore, fails. 22. Coming now to the second argument of Dr. Chitale to the effect that proviso to Section 3(2) of the Act, prohibited the State Government to make an order of detention in the first instance, exceeding three months, and since the order of detention in the instant case had been made for a period exceeding three months, it was vitiated. Section 3 reads as follows: Power to make orders detaining certain persons. (1) The State Government may, if satisfied with respect to any person that with a view to preventing him from acting ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he order, the District Magistrate or the Commissioner of Police may also if satisfied as provided in sub-section (1), exercise the powers of the State Government as conferred by sub-Section (1). The proviso to sub-Section (2), only lays down that the period of delegation of powers, specified in the order to be made by the State Government under sub-section (2), delegating to the District Magistrate or the Commissioner of Police the powers under sub-section (1) shall not in the first instance exceed three months. The proviso, therefore, has nothing to do with the period of detention of a detenu. The maximum period of detention is prescribed under Section 13 of the Act which lays down that a person may be detained in pursuance of any detention order made under the Act, which has been confirmed under Section 12 of the Act. It is, therefore, futile to contend that the order of detention in the instant case was vitiated because it was for a period of more than three months. The second argument, therefore, also fails. 24. We are, in the facts and circumstances of the case, satisfied that the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court rightly dismissed the Criminal Writ Petition No. 597 o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
