STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS. versus MEHAMUD

Citation: [2007] 7 S.C.R. 1043 · Decided: 19-06-2007 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Case Partly allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

x. 
ST A TE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS. 
A 
v. 
MEHAMUD 
JUNE 19, 2007 
[DR. ARIJIT PASAY AT AND P.P. NAOLEKAR, JJ.] 
B 
Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords, 
Bootleggers and Drug Offenders Act, I 98 I: 
ss. 2(/-b) and 3-'Dangerous person '-Order of detention-Expression c 
"habitually commits or attempts to commit"-Connotation of-Held: Detenu 
being involved in fourteen cases and several cases being pending which 
related to offences punishable under Chapters XVI and XVJI of 1.P.C and 
Chapter V of Arms Act, and considering the nature of jurisdiction which the 
detaining authority exercises, the conclusion of High Court that there must D 
be a conviction in order to say that detenu habitually commits offences is 
clearly unsustainable-Jn this regard the reasonable belief of police officials 
is sufficient-Preventive Detention. 
Words and Phrases: Expressions "habitually" and "habitually commits 
or attempts to commit" occurring in s.2(1-b) of Mahrashtra Prevention of E 
Dangerous Activities of Slumlords, Bootleggers and Drug Offenders Act, 
1981-Connotation of 
An order of detention was passed against the respondent u/s. 3 of the 
Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords, Bootleggers 
:J 
and Drug Offenders Act, 1981 treating him as a 'dangerous person'. The F 
High Court set aside the said order holding that the expression "habitually 
-
commits" conveys a situation where a person is conclusively known to have 
surely committed the crime for which he was convicted in the past by a Court 
of competent jurisdiction as on that basis alone it could be said that he was 
repeatedly indulging in such acts and mere pendency of cases would not be G 
sufficient to treat a pe.rson as dangerous pt:rson. 
It was submitted on behalf of the appellant State that through the 
' 
detenue had suffered about 10 months' detention out of the total detention for 
one year, yet since the order of the High court was clearly unsustainable, the 
1043 
H 
1044 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(2007) 7 S.C.R. 
A appeal was being pressed. 
.x 
Allowing the appeal in part, the Court 
HELD: I.I. At the outset it is to be noted that the order under 
Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords, Bootleggers 
B and Drug Offenders Act, 1981 is preventive in nature and character. The 
expression "habitually" is very significant. A person is said to be a habitual 
criminal who by force of habit or inward disposition is accustomed to commit 
crimes. It implies commission of such crimes repeatedly or persistently and 
primafacie there should be continuity in the commission of those offences. 
c 
In this regard the reasonable belief of the police officials is sufficient. 
!Para 5, 8 and 11)11046-F; 1049-G-H; 1049-AI 
Mustakmiya Jabbarmiya Shaikh v. M M Mehta, Commissioner of Police 
and Ors., 1199513 SCC 237; Dhanji Ram Sharma v. Superintendent of Police, 
AIR (1966) SC 1766 and Ayub alias Pappukhan Nawabkhan Pathan v. S. N 
D Sinha, (1990) 4 SCC 552, relied on. 
1.2. The word 'habitually' does not refer to the frequency of the occasions 
.... 
' 
but to the invariability of a practice and the habit has to be proved by totally of 
facts. It, therefore, follows that the complicity of a person in an isolated offence 
is neither evidence nor a material of any help to conclude that a particular 
E person is a "dangerous person" unless there is material suggesting his 
complicity in such cases, which lead to a reasonable conclusion that the person 
is a habitual criminal. The word 'habitually' means 'usually' and 'generally'. 
It does not refer to the frequency of the occasions but to the invariability of 
practice and the habit has to be proved by totality of facts. 
F 
!Para 10) 11049-E-G) 
l 
Vijay Amba Das Diware and Ors. v. Balkrishna Woman Dande and Anrr., 
12000) 4 SCC 126; Mustakmiya Jabbarmiya Shaikh v. M. M. Mehta, 
....
Commissioner of Police, (19951 3 SCC 237, relied on. 
G 
Advanced Law Lexicon (3rd Edn.) by P. Ramanatha Aiyer; Aiyer's 
Judicial Dictionary, 10th Edition, p 485, referred to. 
1.3. In the instant case, as the order of detention shows the detenu was 
involved in fourteen cases and several cases were pending which related to 
\ 
offences punishable under Chapter XVI and XVII of the IPC and Chapter V 
H 
of the Arms Act, 1959. Considering the nature of the jurisdiction which the 
J 
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA v. MEHAMUD(PASAYAT.J.J 
1045 
detaining authority exercise. the conclusion of the High Court
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.