Verify in-camera statements, cops told

The tendency of the police to type out statements and verifications at the same time and get them signed by the verifying authority by putting in a different date, was criticised as a 8220;whimsical farce8221;. 8220;Though we do not disbelieve the endorsement, we strongly feel such cryptic and mechanical verification will not afford sufficient safeguard againstthe misuse and manipulation of the power of the police officers who seeks to detain a person without proper trial8221; the bench said in its order on August 10.

Vidyadhar H Varma had moved the high court against the detention of his son Mahesh Varma, under the act on March 23. His counsel, S R Chitnis8217;s had argued that the statements on the basis of which Varma was detained as a dangerous person8217; could not be used to 8220;subjectively satisfy8221; that he was a dangerous person.

Varma had been detained under the MPDA for assaulting the complainant, Karansingh at Kalina at Santacruz E after an altercation, for which the latter was hospitalised. To prove that the person was a habitual offender, two in-camera statements, by two witnesses, A8217; and B8217; were recorded by the police, wherein A8217;, a garage owner, had stated that he knew Varma and his associates as goondas of the area, moving around with deadly weapons and had created a nuisance in the areas of Mani Pada, Kuraiya Estate, Vidya Nagari road, CST road, etc.

He had claimed that Varma had used a revolver to threaten him as he once wanted a car from his garage and who then snatched his chain. B8217;, a woman doing a computer course, claimed she had been molested by the detenue.

Chitnis, however, contended that these two instances did not suit the definition of a dangerous person8217;, who is defined as a 8220;person who habitually commits or attempts to commit a crime8221;. He also said the complaint in the crime register and the in-camera statements were not of the same nature.

In their order, the bench rejected the Chitnis8217;s first submission, saying that if it were so, a person who rapes would have to continue to do so, or one who extorts money would have to do so on more than one occasion. 8220;We cannot subscribe to such a narrow meaning of the word, dangerous person8217;,8221; the order reads.

The bench also rejected Chitnis8217;s second submission, that the detaining authority cannot rely 8220;blindly on the in-camera statements to arrive at the subjective satisfaction8221;, butafter scrutinising the facts of the case, concluded that in this case, the in-camera statements could not be a basis for detaining the person.

The bench noted that in this case, the allegation in the crime register was only 8220;an individual act8221;. 8220;There is no allegation that while committing the offence, the detenu has created any fear or terror in the mind of the public so that public order is endangered. As the disturbance of the public order is a sine qua non for invoking the provisions of Section 3 1 of the act, the CR does not disclose this8221; the order reads.

Having perused the files, the bench recorded the verification typed below each statement of the in-camera witness which was: 8220;The witness was produced before me. The statement was given by him, was shown to him and was read before him. The witness states that the statement bears his signature and the contents of the statement were correct8221; signed by the assistant commissioner of police ACP.

8220;The ACP did not say that theallegations were verified by him through an independent and confidential inquiry. The ACP did not even make any prima facie inquiry about the veracity of the allegation of the witness8221; the order says. The bench then went on to say that the police department should set up a machinery of its own to ensure the credibility of such in-camera statements.