STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS. versus MEHAMUD

STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS. versus MEHAMUD

A conviction is not necessary to treat a person as habitually committing offences under ss. 2(1-b) and 3; reasonable belief supported by material showing repeated involvement in qualifying offences suffices for preventive detention.

Parties
Appellant: State of Maharashtra; Respondent: Mehamud
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
19 June 2007
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal From High Court Judgment
Outcome
Appeal partly allowed
Legal Topics
Habitual Offender, Detention, Interpretation of 'habitually Commits or Attempts to Commit'
Preventive Detention Criminal Law Habitual Offender Detention Interpretation of 'habitually Commits or Attempts to Commit'

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

State of Maharashtra

Appellant

Mehamud

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal From High Court Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether conviction is necessary to treat a person as habitually committing offences under ss. 2(1-b) and 3 of the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities Act
  2. 2 Interpretation of 'habitually commits or attempts to commit' in preventive detention

Ratio Decidendi

A conviction is not necessary to treat a person as habitually committing offences under ss. 2(1-b) and 3; reasonable belief supported by material showing repeated involvement in qualifying offences suffices for preventive detention.

Court Disposition

Appeal partly allowed

Orders

  • Order of detention is restored but detenu need not surrender to serve the remaining period of sentence due to passage of time