Author: Advait Shukla.
Laxman Sharnappa Dindore v. State of Maharashtra
Case No.: Criminal Writ Petition No.3117 Of 2018)
Date of Pronouncing Judgment: 22nd November 2018
Coram: R. M. Savant & V. K. Jadhav, Jj.
Judgment By: R. M. Savant J.
PRINCIPLES OF LAW DISCUSSED:
- Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords, Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Dangerous Persons and Video Pirates Act, 1981 (for short the “MPDA Act”) – merely because he is a bootlegger he cannot be preventively detained under the provisions of the Act unless, as laid down in subsection (4) of section 3 of the Act, his activities as a bootlegger affect adversely or are likely to affect adversely the maintenance of public.
- Petitioner may be punished for the alleged offences committed by him but surely the acts constituting the offences cannot be said to have affected the even tempo of the life of the community.
- There must be material to show that there has been a feeling of insecurity among the general public.
- where no material was produced by the detaining authority to show the detenu indulging in the sale or supply of liquor, held that the subjective satisfaction recorded by the detaining authority was vitiated and therefore the detention order was likely to be set aside.
- It is not necessary that the activities should be calculated to cause any harm to the public health as such but it is enough if the activities are likely to cause harm, danger or alarm or feeling of insecurity amongst the general public or any section thereof.
DECISION & DISCUSSION:
This Writ Petition takes exception to the detention order issued under Section 3(1) of the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords, Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Dangerous Persons and Video Pirates Act, 1981 (for short the “MPDA Act”). Hon’ble High referred to some judgments as follows:
in Piyush Kantilal Mehta vs The Coomr. Of Police Ahmedabad City & Anr.[1]. the Apex Court held that the detaining authority in the said case has failed to substantiate that the alleged antisocial activities of the Petitioner adversely affect or likely to affect adversely the maintenance of public order. In the said case the Apex Court was of the view that the Petitioner may be punished for the alleged offences committed by him but surely the acts constituting the offences cannot be said to have affected the even tempo of the life of the community.
In Mustakmiya Jabbarmiya Shaikh v/s. M. M. Mehta, Commissioner of Police and others[2], the Apex Court relied upon its judgment in Piyush Kantilal Jain’s case to reiterate that an activity may be said to affect adversely the maintenance of public order, there must be material to show that there has been a feeling of insecurity among the general public.
The reference was made to Division Bench Bombay HC, in Shri Vinod Subhas Chavan v/s. Himmatrao Deshbhartar & ors[3], in the facts of the said case, where no material was produced by the detaining authority to show the detenu indulging in the sale or supply of liquor, held that the subjective satisfaction recorded by the detaining authority was vitiated and therefore the detention order was likely to be set aside.
However, it is not necessary that the activities should be calculated to cause any harm to the public health as such but it is enough if the activities are likely to cause harm, danger or alarm or feeling of insecurity amongst the general public or any section thereof.
Law laid down by this judgment:
Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords, Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Dangerous Persons and Video Pirates Act, 1981 (for short the “MPDA Act”) – merely because he is a bootlegger he cannot be preventively detained under the provisions of the Act unless, as laid down in subsection (4) of section 3 of the Act, his activities as a bootlegger affect adversely or are likely to affect adversely the maintenance of public.
Shri. Bababnrao Borhade v. Smt. Chandrabhaga Bababnrao Borhade & Anr.
Case No.: Criminal Revision Application No. 154 Of 2001)
Date Of Pronouncing Judgment: 10th October 2018 (Uploaded On 21/11/2018)
Coram: Mridula Bhatkar, J.
Judgment By: Mridula Bhatkar, J.
PRINCIPLES OF LAW DISCUSSED:
- Code of Criminal Procedure: S.125: a proceeding filed under Section 125 of the CrPC – summary proceeding wherein a strict proof of fact is not required to establish the marriage unlike a criminal proceeding.
- It is settled position of law that the proceeding filed under Section 125 of the CrPC is summary proceeding wherein a strict proof of fact is not required like other criminal proceedings.
- If a woman she is compelled to leave the house of a husband, then it is not a voluntary withdrawal from the company of the husband, it is to be considered as neglect or refusal on the part of the husband to maintain his wife.
DECISION & DISCUSSION:
After examining all the facts of the case, the court noted-
“It is settled position of law that the proceeding filed under Section 125 of the CrPC is summary proceeding wherein a strict proof of fact is not required like other criminal proceedings. The Court should get reasonable assurance from the evidence adduced by respondent wife that the marriage has taken place between the parties and she is the first legally wedded wife of the husband from whom she claims maintenance.”
Due to physical assault or unbearable mental harassment, if she is compelled to leave the house of a husband, then it is not a voluntary withdrawal from the company of the husband, it is to be considered as neglect or refusal on the part of the husband to maintain his wife”
The court disagreed with earlier order of the trial court (JMFC) dismissing the application for maintenance and observed- “After going through the judgment of the learned Magistrate, it is found that the learned Magistrate could not get the pulse while appreciating evidence in the proceedings of maintenance filed under Section 125 of the CrPC. The Judge has taken very technical and pedantic view, which is not expected in the matters of maintenance, but gender friendly approach is required.”
“In such cases, while appreciating the evidence, a Judge needs to be sensitive enough to know social fibre of rural people in India. The evidence is to be appreciated on constructing the time period of 1964-65. Respondent wife is not educated. She is a daughter of gardener, who was working in the orange orchid owned by the husband. She deposed about her plight after the marriage. She was beaten up and harassed by her husband after marriage and he insisted that she should give him divorce. Therefore, she left her husband. It is not required for a woman to depose that she was driven out of the house by husband. Due to physical assault or unbearable mental harassment, if she is compelled to leave the house of a husband, then it is not a voluntary withdrawal from the company of the husband, it is to be considered as neglect or refusal on the part of the husband to maintain his wife.”
[1] AIR 1988 (4) S.C. 703.
[2] (1995) 3 SCC 237.
[3] 2013 ALL MR (Cri) 157.
About the Author: Advait is a 2016-19 batch student at ILS Law College, Pune.
Disclaimer: Although we try to ensure that the information provided, whether in relation to the products, services, or offering or otherwise provided (hereinafter mentioned as “INFORMATION”) on the website is correct at the time of publishing, we or any third parties do not provide any warranty or guarantee as to the accuracy, timeliness, performance, completeness or suitability of the information and materials found or offered on this website for any particular purpose. It shall be your own responsibility to ensure that any products, services or information available through this website meet your specific requirements. Neither the website nor any person/organization acting on its behalf may accept any legal liability/responsibility.
Criminal Law Research & Review 