LAHU SHRIRANG GATKAL versus STATE OF MAHARASHTRA, THROUGH THE SECRETARY AND ORS.

Citation: [2017] 6 S.C.R. 389 · Decided: 17-07-2017 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: N.V. RAMANA, PRAFULLA C. PANT · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

[2017] 6 S.C.R. 389 
LAHU SHRIRANG GATKAL 
v. 
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA, THROUGH THE SECRETARY 
AND ORS. 
(Criminal Appeal No. 1185of2017) 
JULY 17,2017 
[N.V. RAMANA AND PRAFULLA C. PANT, JJ.] 
A 
B 
Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords, 
Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Dangerous Persons, Video Pirates, 
C 
Sand Smugglers and Persons engaged in Black marketing of 
Essential Commodities Act, 1981: s.3(2) - Detention order - Period 
of detention not specified in detention order - Held: it is well settled 
that a presumptive legislation such as the present Act needs to be 
given a strict interpretation - Proviso to sub-section (2) of s.3 
envisages a period to be specified in the order with a maximum cap 
D 
of six months at the first instance - Therefore authorities could not 
have passed such a blanket order of detention without specifying 
the period of detention, as was done in this case - The order of 
preventive detention accordingly set aside - Interpretation of 
statutes - Strict interpretation. 
Cherukuri Mani v. Chief Secretary (2015) 13 SCC 722 
- referred to. 
Case Law Reference 
(2015) 13 sec 122 
referred to 
Para 4 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal 
No. 1185 of2017. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 18.04.2017 of the High Court 
of Judicature at Bombay Bench at Aurangabad in Criminal Writ Petition 
No. 132 of2017. 
Devadatt Kamat, Rajesh Inamdar, Javedur Rahman, Mehtaab 
Singh Sandhu, Ms. Devina Sharma, Gautam Talukdar, Advs. for the 
Appellant. 
389 
E 
F 
G 
H 
390 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2017) 6 S.C.R. 
A 
Mahaling Pandarge, Nishant Katneshwarkar, Advs. for the 
Respondents. 
The following Order of the Court was delivered 
ORDER 
B 
1. Leave granted. 
2 The appellant had been detained under Section 3( I) of 
Maharashtra Prevention of dangerous Activities of Slumlords, 
Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Dangerous Persons, Video Pirates, Sand 
Smugglers and Persons Engaged in Black Marketing of Essential 
C 
Commodities Act, 1981 [hereinafter 'Act' for brevity] by order dated 
10.10.2016 passed by the Commissioner of Police (Respondent No. 3), 
which came to be challenged before the High Court of Bombay, bench 
at Aurangabad in Criminal Writ Petition No. 132 of 2017, wherein the 
High Court has dismissed the Writ Petition filed by the appellant. 
Aggrieved by the aforesaid order passed by the High Court, appellant is 
D 
before this Court challenging the detention order. . 
3. Brief facts which are necessary for disposal of this case. are 
that the appellant herein is a constable in the Maharashtra Police 
Department. He is alleged to have been involved in various criminal 
activities and at least seven complaints/FIRs are said to have been 
E 
registered against him. On I 0.10.2016, respondent no. 3 passed a detention 
order under Sub-section (I) of Section 3 of the Act on being satisfied 
that appellant was acting in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of 
the public order artd with a view to prevent him from acting in a pre-
judicial manner. It is important to note that the detention order does not 
F 
specify the period of detention. 
4. Assailing the judgment of the High Court, the learned counsel 
for the appellant mainly challenges the order of detention of the appellant 
on the ground that the order of the detention as passed by the respondent 
no. 3 does not mention the period of detention. Further he places reliance 
G 
on ratio of the judgment of this Court in Cherukuri Mani v; Chief 
Secretary, (2015) 13 SCC 722 [hereinafter 'Cherukari Mani Case' 
for brevity). Learned counsel for appellant submits that the Act as well 
as the Andhra Pradesh enactment, which was subject matter of 
Cherukuri Mani Case (supra), is similar except to the extent that the 
initial period of preventive detention is six months under the Act while 
H 
under Andhra Pradesh enactment it is for three months. 
LAHU SHRIRANG GATKAL v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA, 
391 
THROUGH THE SECRETARY AND ORS. 
5. On the other hand the learned counsel for the respondent-State 
A 
has fully supported the reasoning of the High Court in entirety. 
6. Having heard the learned counsels for parties, it would be 
necessary to reproduce Section 3 of the Act-
Power to make orders detaining certain persons. 
(I )The State Government may, if satisfied with respect to any 
person that with a view to preventing him from acting in any 
manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order, it is 
necessary so to do, mak
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.