1992 (3) TMI 348

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....he detenu herein. 3. The first respondent, viz. the Com missioner of Police, Greater Bombay in exercise of powers conferred by Sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords. Bootleggers and Drug Offenders Act 1981 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') read with Govt. Order Home Department (Special) No. DDS/1991/1/SPL-3(B) dated 26th July 1981 passed the impugned order of detention and directed the detenu to be detained in the Nasik Road Central Prison, Nasik. 4. The detaining authority after reaching his subject satisfaction on the materials placed before him by the sponsoring authority has passed the order of detention in question on the basis of five cases registered against....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... the impugned order. 7. Admittedly, of the five criminal cases three are of the year 1990 and the remaining two are dated 5-1-91 and 26-2-91. In respect of the five incidents referred to in the grounds of detention, as mentioned above witnesses A to E have been examined in the later part of March 1991 that is long after the detenu has been released on bail in all the five criminal cases. 8. The question for our consideration is as to whether the delay in passing the detention order has vitiated the said order. The High Court before which a similar contention has been raised has negatived that contention observing thus: The period of four months required by the authorities to pass the order can by no stretch of imagination be tested....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....een the offending acts and the order of detention. However, when there is undue and long delay between the prejudicial activities and the passing of detention order, the Court has to scrutinise whether the detaining authority has satisfactorily examined such a delay and afforded a tenable and reasonable explanation as to why such a delay has occasioned, when called upon to answer and further the Court has to investigate whether the causal connection has been broken in the circumstances of each case. 10. Reference also may be made to Hemlata Kantilal Shah v. State of Maharashtra, in which case this Court observed at p. 13 of AIR Delay ipso facto in passing an order of detention after an incident is not fatal to the detention of a person, ....