CASE NO.: Appeal (crl.) 286 of 2000 PETITIONER: HASAN KHAN IBNE HAIDER KHAN RESPONDENT: R.H. MENDNOCA AND ORS. DATE OF JUDGMENT: 14/03/2000 BENCH: S. RAJENDRA BABU & S.N. PHUKAN JUDGMENT:
JUDGMENT
2000 (2) SCR 272
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by PHUKAN, J. Leave granted.
The appellant challenged the order of detention dated 12 the April, 1999,
passed by the Commissioner of Police, Brihan Murnbai under sub-section (1)
of Section 3 of the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of
Slumlords, Bootleggers, Drug Offenders and Dangerous Persons Act, 1981 read
with Government Order, Home Department (Special) dated 30th March, 1999,
detaining the appellant with a view to prevent him from acting in any
manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order before the High Court
of Bombay by filing a writ petition which was dismissed and hence this
appeal.
Before the High Court, the detention order was challenged on two grounds,
namely (1) the documents supplied to the appellant were illegible and (2)
if the alleged prejudicial activities of the detenu were accepted on their
face value, they would demonstrate a breach of law and order and not public
order. The High Court rejected both the grounds. Before this Court only
ground No. 2 has been canvassed. We may refer to some of the grounds of
detention which require out consideration in view of the contentions raised
on behalf of the appellant.
In the grounds of detention, reference had been made to a criminal
proceeding registered against the appellant and his associates with
reference to occurrence which took place on 9.12.98. Harishchandra Gupta
went near his place of business and noticed that his younger brother was
being assaulted by the appellant and his associates and when he rushed to
see his brother, appellant and his associates assaulted him and when
Harishchandra Gupta and his brother sought for help, none dared to come
forward for their help.
Gist of the statements of witnesses “A and B” recorded have been stated in
the grounds of detention and their entire statement have also been produced
before this Court. From the statement of witness “A”, we find that /the
appellant is a notorious goonda of the locality and with his associates
moved about armed with deadly weapons and collected money from the
residents and assaulted those who refused to pay. The appellant with his
associates went to the fruit stall of this witness and took out a chopper
and started threatening him by using filthy language and on seeing the
incident the nearby vegetable and fruit vendors started running away with
their baskets. The passerby also ran away to fright. From the statement of
witness “B”, we find that the appellant and his associates used to collect
money from the businessmen on threats of assault and out of fear of the
appellant none could dare to inform the police.
This Court in Amanulla Khan Kudeatalla Khan Pathan v. State of Gujarat and
Ors., [1999] 5 SCC 613 considered the expression “acting in any manner
prejudicial to the maintenance of public order” and referring to earlier
decision of this Court in Mustakmiya Jabbarmiya Shaikh v. M.M. Mehta,
Commissioner of Police, [1995] 3 SCC 237 held that the fallout and the
extent and reach of the alleged activities must be of such a nature that
they travel beyond capacity of the ordinary law to deal with him or to
prevent his subversive activities affecting the community at large or a
section of society and it is the decree of disturbance and its impact upon
the even tempo of life of the society or the people of a locality which
determines whether the disturbance caused by such activity amounts only to
a breach of “law and order” or it amounts to breach of “public order”.
Mr. Jain, learned senior counsel for the appellant has urged that the above
activities of the appellant were stray incidents and as such did not
disturb the public order. Applying the above ratio to the grounds of
detention, we find that the appellant extorted money from businessmen and
also gave threats to the people the public place and thereby undoubtedly
affected the even tempo of life of the society, therefore, such activities
cannot be said to be mere disturbance of law and order. The contention of
Mr. Jain has no force.
Mr. Jain has further urged that the criminal proceeding which was started
on the complaint of Harishchandra Gupta was under Sections 341, 323, 334,
504, 506(II) and 34 IPC and all these Sections were bailable and in fact
bail was granted and, therefore, this act cannot be said to disturb public
order. From the grounds of detention, we find that when Harishchandra Gupta
and his brother sought for help, none came forward for their help out of
fear of the appellant and this fact would show that the activities of the
appellant disturbed the life of the people of the area.
In the grounds of detention, reference was made to the conviction of the
appellant under MRTP Act. According to Mr. Jain, this cannot be a ground
for detention of the appellant. Mr. Dhabe, learned senior counsel for the
respondent, has rightly submitted that reference was made to the above
conviction only to show the past criminal history of the appellant.
Mr. Jain has further submitted that there was delay in passing the
detention order. We find that the inquiry was completed during the last
part of February at the level of Deputy Commissioner of Police and the
final order was passed on 12.4.1999. It cannot be said that there was undue
delay and action was being taken in a routine manner, as after completion
of inquiry matter had to be examined at various levels and finally the
orders were passed by the Commissioner.
For the reasons stated above we hold that the High Court rightly dismissed
the petition and we find no reason to interfere with the order of the High
Court.
The appeal is dismissed.