MRS. HARPREET KAUR HARVINDER SINGH BEDI versus STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ANR.

Citation: [1992] 1 S.C.R. 234 · Decided: 21-01-1992 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S. RATNAVEL PANDIAN · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
MRS. HARPREE1' KAUR 
HARVINDER SINGH BED! 
v. 
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ANR. 
JANUARY 21, 1992 
[S. RA1NAVEL PANDIAN AND A.S. ANAND, JJ.] 
Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords Bootleg-
gers and Drug Offenders Act, 1981: 
C 
Section 3( 1 >-Detention order-Purpose of detention-Distinction be-
tween breach of 'law and order' and disturbance of 'public order' -Facts of 
each case-Courts to scrutinise carefully-Detention ordered for more than 
three months at the first instance-()rder-Whether vitiated. 
With a view to check transportation or illicit liquor, the Police were 
D maintaining a watch and the speeding car driven hy 'the detenu, husband 
or the appellant/petitioner was signalled to stop. Instead, the detenu ac-
celerated the car and drove straight towards the Police party. They had 
to jump on to the root path to save themselves. The detenu. hurled abuses 
and threatened to kill the Police Officers. He kept on driving the car reck-
lessly, dashed against a pedestrian thereby injuring him. Ultlmately the 
E 
car collided with a stationary taxi and stopped. The Police rushed to 
apprehend the detenu and two others in the car, but they jumped out or 
the car and escaped. 
Police seized the motor car and recovered illicit liquor thereFrom. 
A police case was registered against the detenu and two other unknown 
J
F persons For offences under Sections 307, 324 read with Section 34 IPC. 
JI 
The detenu made himselr scarce and could not he arrested immediately. 
However, after a rew days he was arrested and he admitted the 
incident including his escape. He was produced beFore the Magistrate and 
G was released on bail on the condition that he should report to the police 
daily. Since the detenu Failed to carry out the condition, 
bail was 
cancelled and he was taken into custody. The detenu then moved the 
Sessions Court against the cancellation or his bail, which was admitted 
and he was granted bail. 
H 
During the investigation or the case, Police could record statements 
234 
~ 
HARPREETKAUR v. STATE 
235 
from four witnesses, who deposed only on condition of anonymity as they 
A 
feared retaliation from the detenu. 
The detaining authority on being satisfied that the detenu was likely 
to indulge in activities prejudicial to the maintenance of 'public order' 
p-d an order of detention and the grounds of detention were served on 
the detenu. The said order was confirmed by the State Government on the B
report of the Advisory Board. The wife of the detenu challenged the 
detention order before the High Court. The High Court having dismissed 
the Writ Petition she has filed the present appeal by special leave, as also 
.... 
a Writ Petition before this Court, challenging the detention order passed 
against her husband. 
c 
On behalf of the appellant/petitioner, it was argued that the activi· 
ties of the detenu had no impact on the public and therefore could not be 
said to have disturbed the even tempo of the society and as such his 
detention for acting in a manner prejudicial to the 'public order' was 
unjustified. It was further contended that Section 3(2) or the Maharashtra 
Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords, Bootleggers and Drug 
D•
Offenders Act, 1981 prohibited the State Government to make an order 
,.. 
of detention in the first instance, exceeding three months, and since in the 
present case the detention order was for more than three months, it was 
invalid. 
Dismissing the matters, this Court, 
E 
HELD : 1.1. Crime is a revolt against the whole society and an 
~ 
attack on the civilization or the day. Order is the basic need of any 
organised civilized society and any attempt to disturb that order affects 
the society and the community. The distinction between breach of 'law 
and order' and disturbance of 'public order' is one of degree and the F 
o· 
extent or reach of the activity in question upon the society. In their 
essential quality, the activities which affect 'law and order' and those 
which disturb 'public order' may not be different but in their potentiality 
and effect upon even tempo of the society and public tranquility there is 
a vast difference. In each case, therefore, the courts have to see the length, 
magnitude and intensity of the questionable activities of a person to find c 
t 
out whether his activities are prejudicial to maintenance of 'public order' 
or only 'law and order'. (244E·G] 
1.2 Respect for law has to be maintained in the intere

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.