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 the detenu for manufacturing and selling illicit liquor and also on the basis of the statements given by witnesses A to E. The five criminal cases registered under the provisions of Bombay Prohibition Act of 1949 relate to the occurrences dated 2 10 90, 11 11 90, 22 11 90, 5 1 91 and 26 2 91.
It transpires from the grounds of detention that in all the criminal cases registered against the detenu under the provisions of the Bombay Prohibition Act, the detenu has been released on bail on the very same day of his arrest or the registration of the cases.
Witnesses Nos.
Of the witnesses, witnesses Nos.
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.
the Com missioner of Police, Greater Bombay in exercise of powers companyferred by Sub section 1 of Section 3 of the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords.
1093 of 1991 dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellant challenging the validity and legality of the order of detention passed against his brother, the detenu herein.
This appeal is preferred by the appellant, Pradeep Nilkanth Paturkar, who is the brother of the detenu, Raju Nilkanth Paturkar, alias Paturkar assailing the companyrectness of the judgment of the High Court of Bombay rendered in Criminal Writ Petition No.
Bootleggers and Drug Offenders Act 1981 hereinafter referred to as the Act read with Govt.
Order Home Department Special No.
Special leave granted.
A and B examined on 26 3 91 speak of the incidents dated 2 10 90 and 27 2 91 respectively.
The first respondent, viz.
C and D examined on 27 3 91 speak of the incidents dated 4 10 90 and 23 1 91.
