Sudarshan Tukaram Mhatre Vs. R.D. Tyagi, Commissioner of Police, Thane and Others - Court Judgment

Daud, J.

1. This petition takes exception to an order of detention made under Section 3(2) of the National Security Act, 1980 (No. 65 of 1980).

2. The Dombivali Police Station received an information from one Abhimanyu Sakharam Kane about his uncle Parshuram Kane having been done to death on 19-4-1989 by the petitioner-detenu and his associates. On the basis of this information an offence punishable under Section 302 read with S. 34 of the Indian Penal Code was registered. The detenu was arrested on 9-5-1989. On 8-6-1989, pursuant to an order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Thane the detenu was released on bail. The investigation into the crime having been completed, a charge-sheet was put up against the detenu and one of his associates viz. Navnath Patil. Thereafter, the detenu was found at two different places; once at the Ramnagar over-bridge, Dombivali (East) and on the next occasion in front of Iran Hotel at Nehru Chowk, Kalyan. This was on 12-6-1989 and 28-7-1989. He was found with a sword on the first occasion and a fire-arm on the other occasion, and this, at a time when a prohibitory order under Section 37(1) r.w. Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act was in force. Reports were lodged and cases put up which cases are either under investigation or awaiting a trial. An application dt. 12-4-1989 was received by the Police Inspector of the Dombivali Police Station alleging that the detenu had caused the murder of Parshuram Kane because of long standing business rivalry between that person and him. It was also alleged that he and his associates were indulging in violent and terrorising activities consisting of extorting money from businessmen and members of the public residing at Dombivali and surrounding areas. The victims were fear-stricken and this had restrained them from moving the police to take action against the offender. The Police Inspector examined two persons who are referred to as 'A' and 'B'. A gave out that he was the victim of a robbery which took place a month or two prior to 12-8-1989. The detenu and his associates had way-laid him and at the point of a knife demanded Rs. 10,000/- from him making it clear that in case the demand was not acceded to he would be done to death. A had not reported the incident for fear of reprisal and was not willing to depose against the detenu and his associates in the open. B gave out that the detenu and his associates had way-laid him when he was returning home from work and demanded Rs. 5,000/- from him. When B pleaded inability the detenu and his associates threatened him with a knife making it clear that his legs would be chopped off unless the demanded amount was paid within two days. B made it clear that he had not lodged a report with the police and would not be speaking out openly against the detenu for fear of reprisal. All this has led to the passing of the impugned detention order and the basis thereof is the conclusion of the detaining authority recited in the following words :-

'From the above-mentioned incidents, it will be seen that you are a desperate goonda indulging in violent and terrorising activities in Ayare Road, Ayare Village, Dombivali (East), Nehru Chowk, Kalyan and adjoining areas in Dombivali and Kalyan towns in Kalyan Taluka and have created terror and panic in the minds of the people residing in the above areas, in Thane Police Commissionerate.'

3. Mr. Chitnis representing the petitioner contends that in relation to the happening of 19-4-1989 the petitioner had been proceeded against and had been released on bail. The other two incidents viz. those which allegedly took place on 12-6-1989 and 28-7-1989 were in no way connected with the maintenance of public order. All that they indicated was that the detenu was found at a certain place, may be a public place, with a concealed fire-arm and sword with or on his person. By no stretch of imagination could this be said to constitute a prejudicial activity deserving of a detention under the Act. In so far as the statements of A and B were concerned, the same were vague inasmuch as the place where the occurrences took place, the time and other vital particulars had not been furnished to the detenu. The consequence was that petitioner's right to make an effective representation against the impugned order had been materially affected. In reply, the Public Prosecutor representing respondents 1 and 2 submits that all the events recited in the grounds make out a case for detention and that in any event a Court is not at liberty to examine the sufficiency or otherwise of the material available at the disposal of the detaining authority which lead him to pass an order of detention. Next, the alleged vagueness in the grounds had not been put forth as reason in the petition for assailing the order of detention. In the absence of a specific plea to that effect respondents 1 and 2 could not give a proper answer thereto.

4. Examined closely, it is difficult to sustain the order of detention. The event of 19-4-1989 in one in which the detenu is said to have masterminded the killing of Parshuram Kane. The Additional Sessions Judge of Thane has granted bail unto the petitioner. The two incidents in which the petitioner was found possessed of a sword and a fire-arm can by no stretch of imagination be said to be a breach of public order. A desperado with a concealed fire-arm on his person, albeit in a public place, is not a menace to public order, unless of course he flourishes the fire-arm or by word or gesture indicates that it is with him and he will not stop at using it. Last, are the statements of A and B and here we must agree that they are totally vague. It is correct to say that the petition makes no pointed reference to the alleged ambiguity said to afflict the enumeration of what A and B are said to have stated in the grounds furnished to the detenu. That the grounds are vague has been pleaded albeit in a general sort of way. Even otherwise the law of pleadings in all its rigor is not applicable to criminal cases, and more particularly, habeas corpus petitions. Vital particulars are lacking. In relation to the statement of A, the place of hold-up, the time of that hold-up and other relevant matters are totally missing. So is the case with the statement of B. Vagueness is not necessarily a reason for striking down an order of detention. That would vary according to the circumstances of a case. If a ground on the reading thereof is capable of being intelligently understood and is sufficiently definite to enable the detained person to make a representation against the order of detention, it cannot be called vague. A ground so general as not to permit the detained person to meet the charge levelled against him would be one which would prevent the detenu from making an effective representation. In the very nature of things the detenu could not make a proper and effective representation against the vague statements of A and B. Merely describing him as a murderer of Parshuram Kane and a robber was not enough. The incidents spoken of by A and B lacked specificity and these had an adverse effect upon the right of making a representation which the detenu has in law.

5. The result of the foregoing discussion is that the impugned detention order has to be and is hereby quashed. Petitioner be released forthwith unless wanted in connection with some other case. Rule in these terms made absolute.

6. Order accordingly.