Nadim Ahmed Sayyed v. Shri R.S.Sharma & Ors.
Case at a glance
Provisions considered
- Indian Penal Code, 1860 s. 34
Key paragraphs
- Para 88. We therefore through file. We unable learned A.P.P. We Additional Chief Secretary has not applied his mind to this aspect. He has merely signed the note. - 8 -
Judgment
JUDGMENT: JUDGMENT:
The petitioner detained Commissioner Police, Brihan Mumbai detention 12th August 2003 issued provisions Maharashtra Prevention Dangerous Activities Slumlords, Bootleggers, Drug Offenders Dangerous Persons Act, 1981 (for "MPDA Act"), a preventing acting manner prejudicial maintenance public order. The order of detention, grounds of detention and material in support thereof were served on the detenu on 16th April 2004.
The detention C.R. bearing No.46 of 2003 registered at Pydhonie Police Station under Sections - 2 - 386, 387, 342 section 34 Indian Penal Code incamera statements, recorded 5th June 2003 another 6th June
2003. On grounds detaining authority averred grounds detention subjectively satisfied detenu acting a manner prejudicial maintenance public
availed facility, he was likely revert similar activities prejudicial maintenance public order and hence it was necessary to detain him under the provisions of MPDA Act.
Shri Tripathi learned Counsel appearing petitioner challenged impugned several grounds necessary grounds detention aside, ground. Mr.Tripathi contended C.R.No.46 2003 detenu released availed facility. The detaining authority grounds detention awareness fact. However, subsequently detenu arrested connection L.A.C.No.91/2004 registered Crime Branch, Bombay prevented indulging similar activities prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. This fact coupled with the question whether there was a possibility detenu released considered detaining authority ground - 3 - detention liable aside. The learned Counsel submitted Affidavit Shri A.N.Roy, Commissioner Police, Brihan Mumbai, stated detention approved State Government 16-8-2003 State Government’s affidavit referred to. On behalf State Government affidavit Shri Suresh Kumar working Additional Chief Secretary (Home) relevant . The Additional Chief Secretary Affidavit awareness detenu arrested subsequent issuance detention stated likelihood detenu released future further likelihood indulging similar prejudicial activities. Relying judgments Supreme Court reported Dharmendra Suganchand Chelawat Vs. Union India others 1990 S.C.C. (Cri) 249 Binod Singh V. District Magistrate, Dhanbad, (1986) 4 SCC 416, the learned Counsel contended that the order of detention must be set aside on this ground.
Shri Mhaispurkar, learned A.P.P. invited attention the Affidavit of Shri Sureshkumar, the then Additional Chief Secretary (Home) wherein it is averred as under: . Thereafter, "... arms. brought 5-4-2004 through Commissioner of Police, Br.Mumbai, wherein Crime It Branch stated notice detenu arrested possessing letter office illegal - 4 - Act 6-4-2004 The 2004 25 receiving detenu Crime Arms 3 u/s LAC After Secretary processed informed No.19 detenu applied forwarded forwarded forwarded letter I necessary Mumbai 31-3-2004. Under Secretary Secretary Secretary (Legal) 7-4-2004 perused stated holidays. subsequent Detention respectfully Singh Order non-application Order I quashed no substance in the say of the petitioner in this para. " endorsement 9-4-2004 I development detention submit present ground Case Hence custody against Assistant day. day. me. 5-4-2004 The Joint endorsement I concluded detenu another I thereafter detain custody executing 11-4-2004. 10-4-2004 detenu Order Hence, detenu. case. illegal, applicable I detention Thus, aside. arrested Branch letter, Under Deputy Deputy Secretary I though I Binod me. liable It The learned A.P.P. submitted affidavit State detenu arrested . possessing illegal arms. This brought Addditional Chief Secretary’s notice 5-4-2004 through office Commissioner Police, Mumbai opinion necessary detain detenu. According learned A.P.P. judgment Binod Singh’s (supra) applicable present case. The learned A.P.P. submitted that even the record of the Home Department bears out this fact. - 5 -
There controversy before to who detaining authority detention approved State Government. Our attention was judgment Supreme Court State Maharashtra others Vs. Santosh Shankar Acharya JT 2000 (8) SC 374 in the context of the consideration of representation the Supreme Court has observed that, . a 3 factum Section "...in issued grounds Government making Government Detaining Detaining detention State from the date of issuance of detention order.." Authority Authority issued Government Act a Act, officer required detention detention Sub-section notwithstanding forthwith together materials notwithstanding itself representation specifically Section continues provides 8(1), approved within a period 12 (2) report State State . Relying judgment contended behalf State Government period 12 Commissioner Police, Brihan Mumbai detaining authority becomes thereafter State Government detaining authority. Therefore, regards subsequent arrest detenu possibility release responsibility State Government to apply its mind to it. It was contended by - 6 - Mr.Tripathi observations Supreme Court Santoshkumar’s (supra) confined aspect consideration representation Section 14 Act purposes Commissioner Police continues detaining authority awareness about the arrest of the detenu in the affidavit in reply.
Shri In opinion, necessary aspect matter because accept State’s contention State Maharashtra detaining authority affidavit Sureshkumar, Additional Chief Secretary (Home) applied aspect subsequent arrest detenue effect. As stated Supreme Court Dharmendra Chelawat’s (supra) necessary detaining authority express awareness subsisting custody detenu, reasons justifying detention , likelihood released future. In Binodsingh stretched a a person arrested issuance detention. The question whether detention should served detenu arrested subsequent issuance detention considered detaining authority. Relevant observation of the Supreme Court in Binod Singh’s case (supra) may be quoted. - 7 - detenu therefore justified proper "...In passing reasons, though appear consideration therefore, the continued detention of the detenu under the Act is not justified..." before danger detenu grounds detention surrendered service consideration passed custody release. service Nor aspect circumstances properly. whatever detention In case, present Additional Chief Secretary stated he was .
(Home) In detenu arrested. He stated executing detention. However, affidavit silent likelihood detenu released future possibility indulging prejudicial activities thereafter. An effort learned A.P.P. contend though specific statement affidavit Additional Chief Secretary (Home), inferred from the file of the State Government that this aspect was considered by him.
We therefore through file. We unable learned A.P.P. We Additional Chief Secretary has not applied his mind to this aspect. He has merely signed the note. - 8 -
In matter, detention 12th August 2003 will have to be quashed and set aside and is accordingly set aside.
The detenu Nadim Ahmed Sayyed is ordered to be released forthwith unless required in any other case. DESAI,J.) SMT.RANJANA DESAI,J. (SMT.RANJANA DESAI,J. SMT.RANJANA S. OKA,J.) (ABHAY S. OKA,J. (ABHAY S. OKA,J. (ABHAY
Questions this judgment answers
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Indian Penal Code, 1860 — s. 34.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Bombay High Court, on 12 Aug 2003. The bench was A S OKA.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.