Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Rohit @ Karan s/o Purshottam Naukariya, was detained by an order dated 22/12/2021 passed by the Commissioner of Police, Nagpur City (respondent no.2) 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 petitioner challenged the detention order before the Bombay High Court at Nagpur Bench. The petitioner's counsel argued that the detention order was illegal on two counts: first, that the in-camera statements of two confidential witnesses relied upon were not verified by the Detaining Authority himself, and second, that these statements were vague and did not provide relevant material for the Detaining Authority to arrive at the requisite satisfaction. The respondents, represented by the Additional Public Prosecutor, submitted that it was not disputed that the statements were verified by the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Sadar Division, Nagpur, who found them to be totally genuine, and these facts were mentioned in the impugned order. It was further pointed out that the period, time, and place of incidents were specifically mentioned in the in-camera statements, so they could not be considered vague. Upon consideration of the reasons stated in the impugned order and the material on record, the court found substance in the respondents' argument and no merit in the petitioner's argument. The court noted that the statements of confidential witnesses were verified for their genuineness by the Assistant Commissioner of Police, and a report to that effect was submitted to the Detaining Authority, who considered it. The court held that the verification by a senior officer like the Assistant Commissioner of Police was sufficient, and the statements containing specific details were not vague. Consequently, the court dismissed the petition and upheld the detention order.
Headnote
A) Preventive Detention - MPDA Act - Verification of In-Camera Statements - Section 3(2) of 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 - The petitioner challenged detention order on ground that in-camera statements were not verified by Detaining Authority himself and were vague. Court held that verification by Assistant Commissioner of Police, a senior officer, was sufficient and statements containing specific details of time, place and incident were not vague. (Paras 4-7) B) Preventive Detention - MPDA Act - Subjective Satisfaction - Section 3(2) of MPDA Act - The Detaining Authority considered the verification report and material on record to arrive at requisite satisfaction. Court found no merit in petitioner's argument and upheld the detention order. (Paras 6-7)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the detention order under Section 3(2) of the MPDA Act is illegal on the grounds that in-camera statements of confidential witnesses were not verified by the Detaining Authority himself and were vague.
Final Decision
The court dismissed the petition and upheld the detention order dated 22/12/2021 passed under Section 3(2) of the MPDA Act.
Law Points
- Detention under MPDA Act
- In-camera statements
- Verification by authorized officer
- Vagueness of statements
- Subjective satisfaction of detaining authority
