{"id":272337,"date":"1995-03-23T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1995-03-22T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mustakmiya-jabbarmiya-shaikh-vs-m-m-mehta-commissioner-of-on-23-march-1995"},"modified":"2016-03-10T15:22:56","modified_gmt":"2016-03-10T09:52:56","slug":"mustakmiya-jabbarmiya-shaikh-vs-m-m-mehta-commissioner-of-on-23-march-1995","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mustakmiya-jabbarmiya-shaikh-vs-m-m-mehta-commissioner-of-on-23-march-1995","title":{"rendered":"Mustakmiya Jabbarmiya Shaikh vs M.M. Mehta, Commissioner Of … on 23 March, 1995"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Mustakmiya Jabbarmiya Shaikh vs M.M. Mehta, Commissioner Of … on 23 March, 1995<\/div>\n
Bench: S.C. Agrawal, Faizan Uddin<\/div>\n
           CASE NO.:\nWrit Petition (crl.)  335 of 1994\n\nPETITIONER:\nMUSTAKMIYA JABBARMIYA SHAIKH\n\nRESPONDENT:\nM.M. MEHTA, COMMISSIONER OF POLICE AND ORS.\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT: 23\/03\/1995\n\nBENCH:\nS.C. AGRAWAL & FAIZAN UDDIN\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
JUDGMENT<\/p>\n
1995(2) SCR 960<\/p>\n
The following Judgment of the Court was delivered by<\/p>\n
FAIZAN UDDIN, J. 1. This writ petition under Article 32<\/a> of the Constitution
\nof India has been filed by the petitioner challenging the correctness and
\nvalidity of the detention order dated 19th August, 1994 passed by the
\nCommissioner of Police, Shahibagh, Ahmedabad city, detain-ing the
\npetitioner in exercise of the powers conferred on him under sub-section (1)
\nof Section 3 of the Gujarat Prevention of Anti-Social Activities Act, 1985
\n(hereinafter referred to as the Act) with a view to preventing the
\npetitioner-detenu from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance
\nof public order in the area of Ahmedabad city. In pur-suance of the said
\norder the petitioner has been detained in jail, Junagarh.\n<\/p>\n
2, Briefly stated the alleged activities of the detenu – petitioner as set
\nout in the grounds of detention dated 19th August, 1994 are that the
\npetitioner was habitually indulging in criminal and anti-social activities
\nin the area of Shahpur, Patwasheri area of Teen Darwaza and Sardar Garden
\narea of Ahmedabad city by keeping fire-arms, beating and assaulting
\ninnocent citizens in public and creating an atmosphere of fear and terror
\nin the said areas. It has been alleged that the four witnesses have stated
\nin their statement that the detenu – petitioner is a headstrong, fierce and
\nhabitual criminal and, therefore, nobody comes forward to complain against
\nhim and the said witnesses have made a request not to disclose their names
\nand identity for fear of the petitioner and, therefore, the names and
\nidentity of the witnesses have not been disclosed in public interest under
\nSection 9 (2) of the Act. The relevant criminal activities as alleged
\nagainst the detenu-petitioner are precisely detailed herein below:\n<\/p>\n
___________________________________________________________________________
\n____________
\ns. No.\tDate& Time\tPlace of occu-rrence\tC.R. No.\tNature of
\nOffence\tSeizure Disposal of Incri-minating articles\n<\/p>\n
1.\t24.4.93\tGlamour\t\tunder Section 307,
\n\t6.30 PM\tHair\t\t452\/34 IPC<\/a> & 25(1)A.\n<\/p>\n
\t\tDresser\tI 66\/93\tArms Act<\/a> & Section\tpending
\n\t\tShahpur\t\t135(1)   of  Bombay
\n\t\t\t\tPolice Act\n<\/p>\n
2.\t11.04.94\tShahpur\t\t212\/214 IPC<\/a> harbo-\n<\/p>\n
\t10.30AM\tof DCB\t7\/94\turing the absconding
\n\t\t\t\t           offender of CR No.
\n\t\t\t\t           63\/93 of Shahpur\n<\/p>\n
3.\t10.08.94\tPatwa-\t\tpurchased goods worth
\n\t04.00PM\tshen –\t\tRs.500 and on demand
\n\t\tArea of\t\tof    price    thereof
\n\t\tTin\t\tdragging and beating
\n\t\tDarwaza\t–\tthe businessman on\t–\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t\tpublic    road     and\n\t\t\t\tpointing      revolver\n\t\t\t\ttowards       persons\n\t\t\t\tgathered there\n\n4.\t12.08.94\tEastern\t\tstopping the witness\n\t07.00PM\tGate\t\tand    beating    him\n\t\tSardar\t\tdoubting that he was\n\t\tGarden\t\tinforming police about\n\t\t\t\this anti-social activities\n\t\t\t\tand pointing revolver\n\t\t\t\ttowards       persons\n\t\t\t\tgathered there\n5.\t14,08.94\t\t\tUnder Section 25\/1\tPoint 34\ncountry\n\t07.45PM\t DCB\tArms Act.\tmade revolver\n\t\t\t19\/94<\/span>\n\t\t\t\t\tand 4 cartridges\n<\/pre>\n
___________________________________________________________________________
\n__________________<\/p>\n
3.  On the basis of the aforementioned cases and material connected
\ntherewith as well as on the basis of statements of four witnesses the
\ndetaining authority came to the conclusion that the petitioner is an anti-
\nso-cial element and a dangerous person within the definition of Section
\n2(C)<\/a> of the Act who is habitually engaged in committing and attempting to
\ncommit violent activities and creating an. atmosphere of fear by keeping
\nfire arms without pass\/permit and with a view to preventing the petitioner
\nfrom acting in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order
\npassed the impugned order of detention.\n<\/p>\n
4.  Initially Shri Sushil Kumar, learned senior counsel for the petitioner
\ncanvassed that the petitioner had made representation on 26.8.1993 to the
\nSuperintendent, District Jail, Junagarh for onward trans-mission to the
\ncompetent authorities for its disposal but the said repre-sentation of the
\npetitioner had not been disposed of so far. But Shri P.S. Vyas, Under
\nSecretary to the Government of Gujarat, Home Department (Special) in his
\naffidavit clearly indicated that the petitioner’s repre-sentation dated
\n26.8,1994 which was submitted by him on 31.8.1994 and received by the Stale
\nGovernment on 5.9.1994 was decided on 6.9.1994 and since 9.10.94 and
\n11.9.1994 were holidays the said decision was communi-cated to the
\npetitioner by letter dated 12.9.1994. Faced with this situation it was not
\npossible for the learned counsel to press this ground any further.\n<\/p>\n
5.  Learned counsel for the detenu – petitioner, however, strenuously
\nassailed the impugned order of detention by submitting that there is no
\nmaterial to indicate that the detenu – petitioner is a dangarous person as
\ndefined under Section 2(C)<\/a> of the Act nor there is any material or any past
\nhistory of the detenu or his antecedents to show that the petitioner is
\nhabitually engaged in anti – social activities which may be said to be
\nprejudicial, to the maintenance of public order. He submitted that the
\npetitioner is a married person and maintains a large family by carrying on
\nlawful business of readymade garments. He further submitted that the
\nincident dated 4.11.1994 under Section 212<\/a>\/214<\/a> I.P.C. regarding the alleged
\nharbouring of wanted offender does not fall either under Chapter XVI or
\nChapter XVII of the I.P.C<\/a>. as mentioned in Clause (C) of Section 2<\/a> of the
\nAct and, therefore, could not be made a ground in passing the impugned
\norder of detention. He also submitted that the incident dated 24.4.1993 is
\nstale and relates to an individual incident and has no relation or any
\nconnection with the problem of any public order. He submitted that it may
\nat the most amount to a stray and individual incident relating to law and
\norder. He also submitted that mere possession of the alleged .32 bore
\ncountry made revolver with four cartridges without anything more par-
\nticularly when the same was found to be rusty and the barrel broken could
\nhot be said to be to the working order and, therefore, the circumstances of
\nseizure of the revolver alone cannot lead to create any problem relating to
\nthe public order. He also submitted that the incidents dated 10.8.94 and
\n12.8.94 are also stray and individual incidents absolutely having no
\nrelation with public order. He, therefore, submitted that in the absence of
\nany material to indicate that the detenu – petitioner was a dangerous
\nperson habitually committing or attempting to commit or abetting the
\ncommission of any of the offences punishable under Chapter XVI or Chapter
\nXVII of the IPC<\/a> or any of the offences punishable under Chapter V of the
\nArms Act, the impugned order of detention could not be legally sustained,<\/p>\n
6. With a view to deal with the aforementioned submissions advanced by the
\nlearned counsel for the petitioner and to examine the legality\/validity of
\nthe impugned order of detention it would be appropriate to look into the
\nrelevant provisions of the Act in question under which the detention order
\nhas been passed. It may be pointed out that the Act provides for preventive
\ndetention of bootleggers, dangerous persons, drug offenders, immoral
\ntraffic offenders and property grabbers for preventing their anti-social
\nand dangerous activities prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. In
\nthe present case having regard to the grounds of detection the detaining
\nauthority on being satisfied that the detenu – petitioner was a ‘dangerous
\nperson’ within the meaning of clause (C) of Section 2<\/a> of the Act and passed
\nthe order of detention. Section 2(C)<\/a> of the Act reads as under:\n<\/p>\n
“Dangerous person” means a person, and either by himself or as a member or
\nleader of a gang habitually commits or attempts to commit or abetes the
\ncommission of any of the offences punishable under Chapter XVI or Chapter
\nXVII of the Indian Penal Code<\/a> or any of the offences punishable under
\nChapter V of the Arms Act, 1959″.\n<\/p>\n
Here it would also be appropriate to reproduce the relevant part of Section
\n3<\/a> of the Act as under:-\n<\/p>\n
“3(l)-The State Government may if satisfied with respect to any person that
\nwith a view to preventing him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the
\nmaintenance of public order, it is neces-sary so to do, make an order
\ndirecting that such person be detained.”,<\/p>\n
(2) If having regard to the circumstances prevailing or likely to prevail
\nin any area within the local limits of the jurisdiction of a District
\nMagistrate or a Commissioner of Police, the State Govern-ment is satisfied
\nthat it is necessary so to do, it may, by order in writing, direct that the
\nDistrict Magistrate or the Commissioner of Police, may also, if satisfied
\nas provided in sub-section (1) exercise the powers conferred by the said
\nsub-section”.\n<\/p>\n
(3)…………..\n<\/p>\n
(4) For the purpose of this section, a person shall be deemed to be ‘acting
\nin any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order when such
\nperson is engaged in or is making preparation for engaging in any
\nactivities whether as a bootlegger or dangerous person or drug offender or
\nimmoral traffic offender or property grabber, which affect adversely or are
\nlikely to affect adversely the maintenance of public order,”\n<\/p>\n
Explanation. – For the purpose of this sub-section, public order shall be
\ndeemed to have been affected adversely or shall be deemed likely to be
\naffected adversely inter alia if any of the activities of any person
\nreferred to in this sub-section directly or indirectly, is causing or is
\nlikely to cause any harm, danger or alarm or feeling of insecurity among
\nthe general public or any section thereof or a grave or widespread danger
\nto life, property or public health.\n<\/p>\n
7.  A reading of the preamble of the Act will make it clear that the object
\nof provisions contained in the Act including those reproduced above is to
\nprevent the crime and to protect the society from anti-social elements and
\ndangerous characters against perpetration of crime by placing them under
\ndetention for such a duration as would disable them from resorting to
\nundesirable criminal activities The provisions of the Act are intended to
\ndeal with habitual criminal dangerous and desperate outlaws who are so
\nhardened and incorrigible that the ordinary provisions of the penal laws
\nand the moral fear of punishment for crime are not sufficient deterrents
\nfor them. Section 3<\/a> of the Act is, therefore, intended to deal with such
\ncriminals who cannot readily be apprehended to be booked under the ordinary
\nlaw and who for special reasons, cannot be convicted under the penal laws
\nin respect of the offences alleged to have been perpetrated by them, But
\nthis power under the Act to detain a person should be exercised with
\nrestraint and great caution. In order to pass an order of detention under
\nthe Act against any person the detaining authority must be satisfied that
\nhe is a ‘dangerous person’ within the meaning of Section 2(C)<\/a> of the Act
\nwho habitually commits, or attempts to commit or abetes the commis-sion of
\nany of the offences punishable under Chapter XVI or XVII of the Penal Code
\nor any of the offences punishable under Chapter V of the Arms Act as
\naccording to sub-section (4) of Section 3<\/a> of the Act it is such ‘dangerous
\nperson’ who for the purpose of Section 3<\/a> shall be deemed to be a person
\n‘acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order’
\nagainst whom an order of detention may lawfully be made.\n<\/p>\n
8.  The Act<\/a> has defined ‘dangerous person’ in clause (C) of Section 2<\/a> to
\nmean a person who either by himself or as a member or leader of a gang
\nhabitually commits or attempts to commit or abetes the commis-sion of any
\nof the offences punishable under the chapters XVI or XVII of the Penal Code
\nor any of the offences punishable under Chapter V of the Arms Act. The
\nexpression ‘habit’ or ‘habitual’ has however, not been defined under the
\nAct, According to the Law Lexicon by P. Ramanatha Iyyar, Reprint Edition
\n1987 page 499 ‘habitually’ means constant, cus-tomary & addicted to
\nspecified habit and the term habitual criminal may be applied to any one
\nwho has been previously convicted of a crime to the sentences and committed
\nJo prison more than twice. The word ‘habitually’ means ‘usually’ and
\n‘generally’. Almost similar meaning is assigned to the words ‘habit’ in
\nAiyar’s Judicial Dictionary, 10th Edition  page 485. It does not refer to
\nthe frequency of the occasions but to the invariability of practice and the
\nhabit has to be proved by totality of facts. It, therefore, follows that
\nthe complicity of a person in an isolated offence is neither evidence nor a
\nmaterial of any help to conclude that a particular person is a ‘dangerous
\nperson’ unless there is material suggesting his complicity in. such cases
\nwhich lead to a reasonable conclusion that the person is a habitual
\ncriminal. In Gopalan Chari v. State of Kerala<\/a>, AIR (1981) SC 674 this Court
\nhad an occasion to deal with expressions like ‘bad habit’, ‘habitual’,
\n‘desperate’, ‘dangerous’, and ‘hazardous’. This Court observed that the
\nword habit implies frequent and usual practice. Again in Vijay Narain Singh
\nv. State of Bihar<\/a>, [1984] 3 SCC 14, this Court construed the expression
\n‘habitually’ to mean repeatedly or persistently and observed that it
\nimplies a thread of continuity stringing together similar repetitive acts
\nbut not isolated, individual and dissimilar acts and that repeated,
\npersistent and similar acts are necessary to justify an inference of habit.
\nIt, therefore, necessarily follows that in order to bring a person within
\nthe expression ‘dangerous person’ as defined in clause (C) of Section 2<\/a> of
\nthe act, there should be positive material to indicate that such person is
\nhabitually committing or attempting to commit or abeting the commission of
\noffences which are punishable under Chapter XVI or XVII of the I.P.C<\/a>. or
\nunder Chapter V of the Arms Act and that a single or isolated act falling
\nunder Chapters XVI or XVII of I.P.C<\/a>, or Chapter V of Arms Act cannot be
\ncharacterised as a habitual act referred to in Section 2(C)<\/a> of the Act.\n<\/p>\n
9. Further, sub-section (1) of Section 3<\/a> of the Act confers power on the
\nState Government and a District Magistrate or a Commissioner of Police
\nunder the direction of the State Government to detain a person on being
\nsatisfied that it is necessary to do so with a view to preventing him from
\nacting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of ‘public order’. The
\nexplanation attached to sub-section (4) of Section 3<\/a> reproduced above in
\nthe foregoing para contemplates that ‘public order’ shall be deemed to have
\nbeen affected adversely or shall be deemed likely to be affected adversely
\ninter-alia if any of the activities of any person referred to in sub-
\nsection (4) directly or indirectly, are causing or is likely to cause any
\nharm, danger or alarm or feeling of insecurity among the general public or
\nany section thereof or a grave or widespread danger to life, property or
\npublic health. Sub-section (4) of Section 3<\/a> also provides that for the
\npurpose of Section 3<\/a>, a person shall be deemed to be ‘acting in any manner
\nprejudicial to the maintenance of public order’ when such person is a
\n‘dangerous person’ and engaged in activities which affect adversely or more
\nlikely to affect adversely the maintenance of public order. It, therefore,
\nbecomes necessary to determine whether besides the person being a
\n‘dangerous person’ his alleged activities fall within the ambit of the
\nexpres-sion ‘public order’. A distinction has to be drawn between law and
\norder and maintenance of public order because most often the two
\nexpressions are confused and detention orders are passed by the authorities
\nconcerned in respect of the activities of a person which exclusively fall
\nwithin the domain of law and order and which have nothing to do with the
\nmain-tenance of public order. In this connection it may be stated that in
\norder to bring the activities of a person within the expression of ‘acting
\nin any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order”, the fall out
\nand the extent and reach of the alleged activities must be for such a
\nnature that they travel beyond the capacity of the ordinary law to deal
\nwith him or to prevent his subversive activities affecting the community at
\nlarge or a large section of society. It is the degree of disturbance and
\nits impact upon the even tempo of life of the society or the people of a
\nlocality which deter-mines whether the disturbance caused by such activity
\namounts only to a ‘breach of law and order’ or it amounts to ‘public
\norder.’ It the activity falls within the category of disturbance of ‘public
\norder’ then it becomes essen-tial to treat such a criminal and deal with
\nhim differently than an ordinary criminal under the law as his activities
\nwould fall beyond the frontiers of law and order, disturbing the even tempo
\nof life of the community of the specified locality. In the case of Arun
\nGhose v. State of West Bengal<\/a>, [1970] 1 SCC 98 this Court had an occasion
\nto deal with the distinction between law and order and public order.
\nHidayatullah, C.J. (as he then was), speaking for the Court observed that
\npublic order would embrace more of the community than law and order. Public
\norder is the even tempo of the life of the community taking the country as
\na whole or eves a specified locality. Disturbance of public order is to be
\ndistinguished from acts directed against individuals which do not disturb
\nthe society to the extent of causing a general disturbance of public
\ntransquillity. It is the degree of disturbance and its affect upon the life
\nof the community in a locality which determines whether the disturbance
\namounts only to breach of law and order. It has been further observed that
\nthe implications of public order are deeper and it affects the even tempo
\nof life and public order is jeopardized because the repercussions of the
\nact embrace large sections of the community and incite them to make further
\nbreaches of the law and order and to subvert the public order. An act by
\nitself is not determinant of its own gravity. In its quality it may not
\ndiffer from another but in its potentiality it may be very different, Again
\nin the case of Piyush Kantilal Mehta v. Commissioner of Police<\/a>, [1989]
\nSupple. 1SCC322, this Court took the view that b order that an activity may
\nbe said to affect adversely the maintenance of public order, there must be
\nmaterial to show that there has been a feeling of insecurity among the
\ngeneral public. If any act of a person creates panic or fear in the minds
\nof the members of the public upsetting the even tempo of life of the
\ncommunity, such act must be said to have a direct bearing on the question
\nof maintenance of public order. The com-mission of an offence will not
\nnecessarily come within the purview of public order which can be dealt with
\nunder ordinary general law of the land.\n<\/p>\n
10, Now reverting to the grounds of detention and the summary of incidents
\nalleged against the petitioner as mentioned in the beginning of this
\njudgment, it may be stated that the first incident is said to have taken
\nplace on 24.4.1993 at about 6.45 PM in which the detenu – petitioner
\nalongwith some of his associates is alleged to have dragged out the
\ncomplainant, one Mohd. Hussain from inside the Hair Cutting Saloon of
\nShahpur and associates of the petitioner fired four rounds from the
\nrevolver injuring the complainant and one another customer. The report
\nlodged by the complainant Mohd. Hussain himself on 24.4.1993, a copy of
\nwhich has been placed on record, goes to show that a day earlier, that is
\non 23.4.1993 at about 9.30 PM there was a quarrel between Amjad Khan, the
\nyounger brother of the complainant Mohd. Hussain and the petitioner upon
\nsounding the scooter horn in the gali of the house of the petitioner and it
\nwas in that connection that next day i.e. on 24.4.1993 the alleged incident
\nof assault by the petitioner and his associates to the complainant Mohd.
\nHussain took place. From the narration of facts in the said complaint it is
\nabundantly clear that the criminal activity was directed against an
\nindividual and from the nature of the incident it is difficult to assume
\nthat it gave rise to public order disturbing the tranquillity of the
\nlocality. At the most it was a criminal act directed only against an
\nindividual which has nothing to do with the question of public order It
\nappears that it was on account of the earlier day incident that the
\npetitioner made a plan alongwith his associates to teach a lesson to the
\ncomplainant by assaulting him when he was seen in the Hair Cutting Saloon
\non 24.4.1993, This apart the incident had occurred on 24,4.1993 while the
\ndetention order was passed on 19.8.1994 after the lapse of more than 16
\nmonths. This long lapse of time between the alleged prejudicial activity
\nand the detention order loses its significance because the said prejudicial
\nconduct was not approximate in point of time and had no rational connection
\nwith the conclusion that the detention was necessary for maintenance of
\npublic order. Such a stale incident can not be construed as justifiable
\nground for passing an order of detention. The second incident dated
\n11.4.1994 was that the detenu – petitioner was harbouring offender which is
\nan offence under Sections 212<\/a>\/214<\/a> of the I.P.C, An offence under Section
\n212<\/a>\/214<\/a> of the I.P.C. cannot be made a basis for passing an order of
\ndetention against the petitioner as the said offence does not fall either
\nunder Chapters XVI or XVII of the I.P.C<\/a>. In order to bring a person within
\nthe definition of Section 2(C)<\/a> of the Act it is essential to show that such
\nperson either by himself or as a member of or a leader of a gang habitually
\ncommits or attempts to commit or abets the commission of offences
\npunishable under Chapter XVI or XVII of the Indian Penal Code<\/a> or any of the
\noffences punishable under Chapter V of the Arms Act. But as pointed out
\nearlier the offence registered against petitioner under F.I.R. of C.R.No.
\n7\/94 of DCB dated 11,4. 1994 is one under Sections 212<\/a>\/214<\/a> of the I.P.C.
\nwhich falls under Chapter XI of the I.P.C<\/a>. and not under any of the
\nchapters XVI or XVII which is the requirement of Section 2(C)<\/a> of the Act.
\nThis incident, therefore, can not be made a basis for satisfaction of the
\ndetaining authority that petitioner is a habitual offender, so as to
\nsustain the order of detention.\n<\/p>\n
11. This brings us to criminal activities of the detenu – petitioner which
\nare said to have taken place on 10.8.1994 at 4.00 PM and on 12.8.1994 at
\n7.00 PM. I the incident dated 10.8.1994 the petitioner is alleged to have
\npurchased goods worth Rs. 5(K) from a businessman and on the demand of the
\nprice of the goods, the petitioner is alleged to have dragged him out on
\nthe public road and not only gave a beating to him but also aimed his
\nrevolver towards the people gathered over there. Similarly it is alleged
\nthat on 12.8.1994 at about 7.00 PM the detenu – petitioner stopped the
\nwitness on the road near eastern side of Sardar Garden and beat him as the
\npetitioner doubted that he was informing the police about the anti-social
\nactivities of the petitioner and his associates. The petitioner is also
\nalleged to have rushed towards the people gathered there with the revolver.
\nTaking the aforesaid two incidents and the allegations on their face value
\nas they are, it is difficult to comprehend that they were the incidents
\ninvolving public order. They were incidents directed against single
\nindividuals having no adverse affect prejudicial to the maintenance of
\npublic order disturbing the even tempo of life or the peace and tran-
\nquillity of the locality. Such casual and isolated incidents can hardly
\nhave any implications which may affect the even tempo of life or jeopardize
\nthe public order an incite people to make further breaches of the law and
\norder which may result in subversion of the public order. As said earlier
\nthe Act by itself is not determinant of its own gravity but it is the
\npotentiality of the act which matters.\n<\/p>\n
12. The alleged incident dated 12.8.1994 relating to the beating of some
\nperson on suspicion that he was informing the police about criminal
\nactivities of the petitioner, the allegation is sweeping without any
\nmaterial to support it. Neither any timely report appears to have been made
\nabout it to the police nor any offence appears to have been registered
\nagainst the detenu – petitioner concerning the said incident. There remains
\nthe solitary incident dated 10.8.1994 pertaining to the alleged beating of
\na businessman which as said earlier directed was against an individual
\nhaving no adverse impact on public at large. Besides, the solitary incident
\ndated 10.8.1994 alone would not provide a justification to hold that the
\npetitioner was habitually committing or attempting to commit or abetting
\nthe commission of offences as contemplated in Section 2(C)<\/a> of the Act
\nbecause the expression ‘habitually’ postulates a thread of continuity in
\nthe commission of offence repeatedly and persistently. However, in our
\nconsidered opinion hone of the aforementioned two incidents can be said to
\nbe incidents affecting public order nor from these stray and casual acts
\nthe petitioner can be branded as a dangerous person within the meaning of
\nSection 2(C)<\/a> of the Act, who was habitually engaged in activities adversely
\naffecting or likely to affect adversely the maintenance of public order.
\nSimilar is the position with regard to the recovery of .32 bore country
\nmade revolver from the possession of the petitioner without any permit or
\nlicence which is an offence under Section 25<\/a> of the Arms Act. The said
\nrevolver was found to be rusty and had a broken barrel. Mere possession of
\na firearm without anything more cannot bring a case within the ambit of an
\nact affecting public order as contemplated in Section 3<\/a> of the Act unless
\ningredients of Section 2(C)<\/a> of the Act are also made out. From the facts
\ndiscussed above it turns out that there was no material which may lead to a
\nreasonable and definite conclusion that the detenu – petitioner was
\nhabitually engaged in criminal activities and, therefore, a dangerous
\nperson. The detaining authority thus passed the impugned order of detention
\nagainst the petitioner without application of mind on the aforesaid aspects
\nof the case and, therefore, the detention order could not be sustained.\n<\/p>\n
13. Consequently, we allow the writ petition and quash the impugned order
\nof detention and direct that the petitioner be released forthwith.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Mustakmiya Jabbarmiya Shaikh vs M.M. Mehta, Commissioner Of … on 23 March, 1995 Bench: S.C. Agrawal, Faizan Uddin CASE NO.: Writ Petition (crl.) 335 of 1994 PETITIONER: MUSTAKMIYA JABBARMIYA SHAIKH RESPONDENT: M.M. MEHTA, COMMISSIONER OF POLICE AND ORS. DATE OF JUDGMENT: 23\/03\/1995 BENCH: S.C. AGRAWAL & FAIZAN UDDIN JUDGMENT: JUDGMENT 1995(2) […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-272337","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nMustakmiya Jabbarmiya Shaikh vs M.M. Mehta, Commissioner Of ... on 23 March, 1995 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mustakmiya-jabbarmiya-shaikh-vs-m-m-mehta-commissioner-of-on-23-march-1995\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Mustakmiya Jabbarmiya Shaikh vs M.M. Mehta, Commissioner Of ... on 23 March, 1995 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mustakmiya-jabbarmiya-shaikh-vs-m-m-mehta-commissioner-of-on-23-march-1995\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"1995-03-22T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-03-10T09:52:56+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"22 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mustakmiya-jabbarmiya-shaikh-vs-m-m-mehta-commissioner-of-on-23-march-1995#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mustakmiya-jabbarmiya-shaikh-vs-m-m-mehta-commissioner-of-on-23-march-1995\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Mustakmiya Jabbarmiya Shaikh vs M.M. Mehta, Commissioner Of … on 23 March, 1995\",\"datePublished\":\"1995-03-22T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-03-10T09:52:56+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mustakmiya-jabbarmiya-shaikh-vs-m-m-mehta-commissioner-of-on-23-march-1995\"},\"wordCount\":4314,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mustakmiya-jabbarmiya-shaikh-vs-m-m-mehta-commissioner-of-on-23-march-1995#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mustakmiya-jabbarmiya-shaikh-vs-m-m-mehta-commissioner-of-on-23-march-1995\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mustakmiya-jabbarmiya-shaikh-vs-m-m-mehta-commissioner-of-on-23-march-1995\",\"name\":\"Mustakmiya Jabbarmiya Shaikh vs M.M. Mehta, Commissioner Of ... on 23 March, 1995 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1995-03-22T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-03-10T09:52:56+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mustakmiya-jabbarmiya-shaikh-vs-m-m-mehta-commissioner-of-on-23-march-1995#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mustakmiya-jabbarmiya-shaikh-vs-m-m-mehta-commissioner-of-on-23-march-1995\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mustakmiya-jabbarmiya-shaikh-vs-m-m-mehta-commissioner-of-on-23-march-1995#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Mustakmiya Jabbarmiya Shaikh vs M.M. Mehta, Commissioner Of … on 23 March, 1995\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Mustakmiya Jabbarmiya Shaikh vs M.M. Mehta, Commissioner Of ... on 23 March, 1995 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mustakmiya-jabbarmiya-shaikh-vs-m-m-mehta-commissioner-of-on-23-march-1995","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Mustakmiya Jabbarmiya Shaikh vs M.M. Mehta, Commissioner Of ... on 23 March, 1995 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mustakmiya-jabbarmiya-shaikh-vs-m-m-mehta-commissioner-of-on-23-march-1995","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1995-03-22T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-03-10T09:52:56+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"22 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mustakmiya-jabbarmiya-shaikh-vs-m-m-mehta-commissioner-of-on-23-march-1995#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mustakmiya-jabbarmiya-shaikh-vs-m-m-mehta-commissioner-of-on-23-march-1995"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Mustakmiya Jabbarmiya Shaikh vs M.M. Mehta, Commissioner Of … on 23 March, 1995","datePublished":"1995-03-22T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-03-10T09:52:56+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mustakmiya-jabbarmiya-shaikh-vs-m-m-mehta-commissioner-of-on-23-march-1995"},"wordCount":4314,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mustakmiya-jabbarmiya-shaikh-vs-m-m-mehta-commissioner-of-on-23-march-1995#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mustakmiya-jabbarmiya-shaikh-vs-m-m-mehta-commissioner-of-on-23-march-1995","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mustakmiya-jabbarmiya-shaikh-vs-m-m-mehta-commissioner-of-on-23-march-1995","name":"Mustakmiya Jabbarmiya Shaikh vs M.M. Mehta, Commissioner Of ... on 23 March, 1995 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1995-03-22T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-03-10T09:52:56+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mustakmiya-jabbarmiya-shaikh-vs-m-m-mehta-commissioner-of-on-23-march-1995#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mustakmiya-jabbarmiya-shaikh-vs-m-m-mehta-commissioner-of-on-23-march-1995"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mustakmiya-jabbarmiya-shaikh-vs-m-m-mehta-commissioner-of-on-23-march-1995#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Mustakmiya Jabbarmiya Shaikh vs M.M. Mehta, Commissioner Of … on 23 March, 1995"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/272337","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=272337"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/272337\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=272337"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=272337"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=272337"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}