Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
SCA/625720/2008 5/ 5 JUDGMENT
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 6257 of 2008
For
Approval and Signature:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE MD SHAH
=========================================================
1
Whether
Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?
2
To be
referred to the Reporter or not ?
3
Whether
their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ?
4
Whether
this case involves a substantial question of law as to the
interpretation of the constitution of India, 1950 or any order
made thereunder ?
5
Whether
it is to be circulated to the civil judge ?
=========================================================
ZUBER
SATTARBHAI MEMON - Petitioner(s)
Versus
COMMISSIONER
OF POLICE & 2 - Respondent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance
:
MR
CHETAN B RAVAL for
the Petitioner
MR DR CHAUHAN, AGP for the
Respondents
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE MD SHAH
Date
: 06/10/2008
ORAL
JUDGMENT
1.
Heard Ms.Chetan B.Raval for the petitioner and learned AGP
Mr.D.R.Chauhan for the respondents.
2.
By way of the the present petition, the petitioner-detenue has
challenged the legality and validity of the order of detention dated
14.03.2008 passed by the Police Commissioner, Ahmedabad City, in
exercise of powers under the provisions of the Gujarat Prevention of
Anti-Social Activities Act, 1985( for short the Act ).
3.
The petitioner-detenu is branded as a bootlegger within the
meaning of Sec.2 (b) of the Act as he was found involved in offences
under the Bombay Prohibition Act by engaging himself in the illegal
sale and distribution of foreign liquor. While passing the order of
detention the detaining authority has considered the fact of
registration of three cases CR no.5207/2007 dt.05.09.2007, CR
no.5051/2008 dt.26.02.2008 and CR no.5052/2008 dt.27.02.2008, first
to be punishable under Sections 661B, 65AE, 116B and 81 and other
two for the offence punishable under Secs.66 1B, 65AE of the Bombay
Prohibition Act and the statement of the accused in the prohibition
cases. The petitioner-detenu was found in possession of total 183
litres of foreign liquor.
4.
The learned Advocate for the petitioner-detenu has assailed the order
under challenge on various grounds as mentioned in the memo of
petition. However,this petition is capable of being disposed of on
the sole ground as to whether there was cogent and credible material
placed before the detaining authority to come to the conclusion that
by the activities of the petitioner, the public order was disturbed.
5.
To reach to the subjective satisfaction that the bottlegging
activities of the petitioner were prejudicial to the maintenance of
public order, the detaining authority must rely upon credible and
cogent material indicating that the activities of the detenu directly
or indirectly were causing or were likely to cause harm, danger or
alarm or feeling of insecurity among the general public or any
section thereof or a grave or widespread danger to life, property
etc. While undertaking this exercise, the detaining authority has to
draw a clear line between the cases falling within the category of
breach of law and order and the cases falling within the category of
breach of public order.
6.
In the present case, the three pending criminal cases registered
against the petitioner under the Prohibition Act and the activities
of the petitioner of engaging himself in the illegal sale and
distribution of country liquor can at the most be said to be
involving law and order problem for which the petitioner can be
adequately punished. It is therefore difficult for this Court to
accept that the petitioner has been rightly detained as the
activities of the petitioner can at the most be termed as affecting
law and order. In short, no further discussion on the other points
raised in this petition is required as in the opinion of this Court,
the order of detention is not sustainable in the eye of law. In this
context reference may be had to the decision rendered in the case of
Harpreet Kaur vs. State of Maharashtra, reported in
1992 SC 797, wherein it has been held that involvement of the
accused in fourteen offences including lifting of gas cylinders
cannot be said to be prejudicial to the maintenance of public
tranquility and the authority was not justified in arriving at the
subjective satisfaction that the activities of the petitioner were
likely to affect the maintenance of public tranquility..
7.
In the result, the petition is allowed. The impugned order of
detention dated 14.03.2008 passed by the Police Commissioner,
Ahmedabad City, is hereby quashed and set aside and detenue is hereby
ordered to be set at liberty forthwith, if not required to be
detained in any other case. Rule is made absolute. Direct service is
permitted.
(M.D.Shah,J.)
*Shitole
Top