ORDER
Smt. Ranjana Desai, J.
1. One Shantaram Balu Kasare father of the detenu Prashant Ajay Shantaram Kasare, has filed the present petition challenging the order of detention dated 11-3-1998 issued under the provisions of the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords, Bootleggers, Drug Offenders and Dangerous Persons Act, 1981. By the said order, the detenu Prashant Ajay Shantaram Kasare has been detained under the provisions of the said Act with a view to preventing him from acting in any
manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. The order of detention dated 11-3-1998 and the grounds of detention bearing the same date were served on the detenu on 13-5-98 along with the marathi translations.
2. The order of detention is passed on the basis of C.R. No. 268 of 1997 under sections 324, 427, 34 I.P.C. C.R. No. 296 of 1997 under sections 326, 34 I.P.C. and two in-camera statements.
3. Mr. Tripathi learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner has assailed the impugned order of detention on several grounds. He contends that several vital and material documents to which a reference is made in the grounds of detention have not been supplied to the detenu and this has violated his right to make an affective representation under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India. This point is urged in ground No. 5(f) of the petition.
4. Vital documents which according to the learned Counsel have not been supplied to the detenu are (a) statement of the associate of the detenu Rajesh @ Nanku Radheshyam Saroj (b) Charge sheet filed in the Metropolitan Magistrate’s 32nd Court, Bandra Mumbai in C.R. No. 95/P/1998 (c) complaint filed by one Santosh Singh at Nirmal Nagar Police Station against the detenu’s friend Amrutlal Sharma for damaging his shop and (d) medical certificate showing that Santosh Singh was admitted in V.N. Desai Hospital and was discharged from there.
5. Mr. Tripathi has drawn our attention to the statement made in para 4(a)(v) of the grounds of detention which runs as following :-
“You were arrested on 7-11-97 whereas your associate namely Rajesh @ Nanku Saroj aged 22 years was arrested on 13-1-98. You and your associate have admitted your complicity in the said offence.”
In connection with this averment, the detenu has been supplied with a document which is found at pgs. 51 to 54 of the compilation. Mrs. Tahilramani the learned Public Prosecutor has confirmed the fact. This document bears the title ‘Arrest/Court surrender form”. It can by no stretch of imagination be called accused statement. In this document, there is no admission of complicity by the detenu’s associate.
6. In the counter filed by the detaining authority, it is stated that the statement of the associate of the defence Rajesh Nanku was placed before him and copy of the same has been furnished to the detenu. Admittedly, statement of the associate of the detenu has not been supplied to the detenu, a fact which is confirmed by the Ld. Public Prosecutor. Therefore, this averment in the affidavit is wrong.
7. From these facts, it appears that either statement of the associate of the detenu wherein he has allegedly admitted his complicity was placed before the detaining authority, and copy whereof was not supplied to the detenu or such a statement was not placed before the detaining authority at all and the averment is based on some extraneous material.
8. We are not opining on the question whether a co-accused or associate’s statement is a vital document or not. In a given case, it may not constitute the basic facts. However, in the peculiar facts of this case, the conclusion that there is a violation of the detenu’s right under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India, is irrestible. It is therefore not necessary to go into the other aspects of the matter.
9. In the result, the impugned order of detention date 11-3-98 issued by respondent No. 1 is quashed and set aside. The detenu shall be released forthwith unless wanted in some other case. Rule is made absolute.
10. Petition allowed.