Criminal Writ Petn. No. 1112 of 1995. Case: Vijay Changdeo Patil Vs Satish Sahney Commissioner of Police Greater Bombay and others. High Court of Bombay (India)
| Case Number | Criminal Writ Petn. No. 1112 of 1995 |
| Counsel | For Appellant: U. N. Tripathi, Adv. and For Respondents: Smt. V.K. Tahilramani, Adv. |
| Judges | A. V. Savant, J. and D. K. Deshmukh, J. |
| Issue | National Security Act (65 of 1980) - Section 3(1) |
| Citation | 1997 CriLJ 185 |
| Judgement Date | August 07, 1996 |
| Court | High Court of Bombay (India) |
Judgment:
S. V. Savant, J.
-
Heard both the learned counsel.
-
This is a petition by the detenu himself challenging his detention under the order dated 11th August, 1995 issued by the first respondent Commissioner of Police, Greater Bombay in exercise of his powers under Sub-Section (1) of Section 3 of the National Security Act, 1980. Under the said order the petitioner was ordered to be detained for a period of one year. The order dated 11th August, 1995 was served on the detenu on 14th August, 1995. It appears that a report under Sub-Section (5) of S. 3 of the said Act was made on 22nd August, 1995 on which day the State Government had approved the order of detention. A reference to the Advisory Board under Section 10 of the Act was made on 24th August, 1995. The Advisory Board held its meeting on 15th Sept. 1995 where the detenu was produced. The report and opinion of the Advisory Board was submitted on 28th Sept. 1995 on which day itself it was received by the State Government. The representation dated 15th Sept. 1995 which was presented to the Advisory Board was placed before the Deputy Chief Minister on 20th Sept. 1995 after receipt of the report of the Advisory Board. The Deputy Chief Minister considered the said representation and rejected the same on 4th Oct., 1995. The order of confirmation under Section 10 of the Act was made on 5th Oct. 1995.
-
The grounds of detention which were served along with the order of detention disclosed the criminal record of the petitioner who is described as a criminal having no ostensible means of subsistence and having taken to crime for the sake of easy money by becoming an active member of the notorious gang formed by Shahuji Bhosle (now deceased) from Sion Chunabhatti area in Bombay. The grounds of detention disclosed that it was necessary to detain the petitioner with a view to preventing him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. It is not necessary for us to refer to the said grounds in detail in view of the short point on which we are inclined to allow the petition.
-
Shri Tripathi for the petitioner has raised several contentions but the only contention which we need to discuss is the one taken by way of amendment in the grounds and which is ground No. 6(f) which reads as under:
6(F). The petitioner says and submits that he made a representation to the Honourable Advisory Board in which a specific request was made that he may please be allowed to produce some witnesses who were present outside the interview hall in order to present his evidence in rebuttal of the allegations made against him. The petitioner submits that even though he made a specific written request he was not allowed to produce witnesses. Which is recognised as a right of a detenu before the Advisory Board. The petitioner submits that as a result of not permitting him to examine witnesses his rights are violated. The petitioner submits that if he would have allowed to produce his witnesses, he could have pursuaded the Hon'ble Advisory Board that there are no sufficient cause for detention and ultimately the appropriate Government could have revoked the order of detention. The order of detention is illegal and bad in law, ought to be quashed and set aside.
(Emphasis supplied)
In short what is contended is that the detenue had kept his witnesses present outside the Board Room on the date on which he...
To continue reading
Request your trial