Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Firoz Mohammad Shaikh, challenged a detention order dated 27 September 2023 passed by the Commissioner of Police, Pune under Section 3(2) 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 (MPDA Act). The detention was based on a single criminal case, C.R.No.263 of 2023 registered at Mundhwa police station for offences under Sections 354, 324, 323, 504, 143, 147, 149, and 427 of the Indian Penal Code. The petitioner argued that the detention order was vitiated because the detaining authority did not consider and supply copies of injury certificates and statements of four injured witnesses (Vaibhav Goswami, Drumika Lalwani, Revati Rathod, and Rohan Choudhari) who were present at the hotel during the incident. These documents were vital for the petitioner to make an effective representation against the detention. The respondents contended that the documents were not necessary as the detenu was not charged with causing hurt to those witnesses. The court examined the original police file and found that the injury certificates and statements of the four witnesses were indeed part of the investigation but were not placed before the detaining authority or supplied to the detenu. The court held that these documents were vital as they related to the alleged dangerous activities of the petitioner. The non-supply of such vital documents infringed the petitioner's right to make an effective representation under Article 22(5) of the Constitution. Consequently, the court quashed the detention order and directed the petitioner's release unless required in any other case.
Headnote
A) Preventive Detention - Non-Supply of Vital Documents - Right to Effective Representation - 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, Section 3(2) - The detaining authority failed to place before itself and supply to the detenu the injury certificates and statements of four injured witnesses, which were vital documents for making an effective representation. Held that such non-supply vitiates the detention order as it infringes the detenu's right under Article 22(5) of the Constitution. (Paras 3.1, 4, 5)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the failure to supply copies of injury certificates and statements of injured witnesses to the detenu vitiates the detention order under the MPDA Act?
Final Decision
The detention order dated 27 September 2023 is quashed and set aside. The petitioner is directed to be released forthwith unless required in any other case.
Law Points
- Preventive detention
- non-supply of vital documents
- right to make effective representation
- Article 22(5) of Constitution of India
- MPDA Act 1981
