Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
B.C.Ray : S.R.Pandian
Abdul Razak Nannekhan Pathan
Versus
Police Commissioner, Ahmedabad
Case No. : 15 of 1989
Date of Decision : 7/27/89
Advocates Appeared: Khan K.M.M. : Mehta T.U. : Patel S.C. : Shah G.A. : Shroff M.N.
Bombay Police Act – Section 135 - PASA Act, 1985 – Section 9(2) - Gujarat Prevention of Anti-Social Activities Act, 1985 – Section 3 ( 1 ) - Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 22(5) - Questioning legality and validity of detention order – Acquittal of order – Appeal against conviction - Court are passing the judgment embodying reasons. This writ petition is directed against the order of detention made under S. 3 ( 1 ) of Gujarat Prevention of Anti-Social Activities Act, 1985, mainly on the grounds that the grounds are not germane and relevant and there has been non-application of mind by the detaining authority in making the said order - Detenu was arrested and kept in Sabarmati central Jail on 5/10/1988 under the impugned detention order made on 5/10/1988 by respondent 1, Shri S. N. Sinha, Police Commissioner, Ahmedabad City and the grounds had been served on him - Detenu immediately thereafter made representations to the detaining authority as well as to the State government and also to the Advisory Board against the impugned order of detention questioning the legality and validity of the detention order. But uptil now he has not received any intimation in respect of his aforesaid representation - Detenu thereafter challenged the impugned order of detention before this court by the instant Writ Petition No. 15 of 1989 for quashing the same – Held, It has been urged on behalf of the detenu that there has been no consideration by the detaining authority of the relevant facts and circumstances before making an order under S. 9(2 of the PASA Act in not disclosing the names and addresses of the witnesses on whose statements the subjective satisfaction has been arrived at. It has also been stated in this connection that, in the grounds of detention it has merely been stated: "Being afraid of you the aforesaid witnesses have asked net to disclose their names and addresses, because they are afraid of damage to their person and property. . . ." It has been urged with force that this ground does not refer that the detaining authority has himself considered and satisfied that the disclosure of their names and addresses are likely to cause damages to their person and property. It has been stated by the detaining authority that on relevant enquiry, it found those statements to be true and as such the names and addresses of those witnesses have not been given to the detenu as provided in S. 9(2 of the PASA Act, 1985. It has been contended on behalf of the petitioner that there is nothing to show that the detaining authority has himself considered that in public interest the names and addresses of these persons should not be disclosed and so such non-disclosure is vague. We do not want to enter into this controversy and decide the same as in our opinion the detaining authority has been satisfied not to disclose the names of those witnesses under S. 9(2 of the said Act. No other grounds have been urged before us on behalf of the petitioner - Writ petition is allowed
Judgment
B.C. RAY, J.
(1) WE have already pronounced in court on 5/05/1989 the order allowing the writ petition and staling therein that the written judgment will follow later on.
(2) PURSUANT to this, we are passing the judgment embodying reasons. This writ petition is directed against the order of detention made under S. 3 ( 1 ) of Gujarat Prevention of Anti-Social Activities Act, 1985, mainly on the grounds that the grounds are not germane and relevant and there has been non-application of mind by the detaining authority in making the said order.
(3) THE detenu was arrested and kept in Sabarmati central Jail on 5/10/1988 under the impugned detention order made on 5/10/1988 by respondent 1, Shri S. N. Sinha, Police Commissioner, Ahmedabad City and the grounds had been served on him.
(4) THE detenu immediately thereafter made representations to the detaining authority as well as to the State government and also to the Advisory Board against the impugned order of detention questioning the legality and validity of the detention order. But uptil now he has not received any intimation in respect of his aforesaid representation. The detenu thereafter challenged the impugned order of detention before this court by the instant Writ Petition No. 15 of 1989 for quashing the same.
(5) BEFORE proceeding to consider on merit it is necessary to quote excerpts of the grounds of detention :
THAT in the Shahalam Chandola Tank area you, with the help of your companions, are committing acts affecting human body as shown in Ch. XVI of the Indian Penal Code with the help of Rampuri knife, razor etc. You are creating atmosphere of terror and danger by causing injuries and by showing lethal weapons to innocent citizens. You are known as dangerous and terrible person in the said area. Therefore you are a dangerous person as defined under S. 2(c) of the said Act and you are, by creating atmosphere of danger and terror, becoming hurdle in the way of maintenance of law and order in the said area. For such acts of yours the following criminal offences under the Indian Penal Code have been registered in the police record against you. The details thereof are as under:
Sl.
Police Station
Crime
Section
Result
No.
R. No.
1.
Kagdapith
96/85
324, 504, 114 IPC,
Compounded
135(1) B.P. Act
2.
Maninagar
120/86
336, 337, 427, 114
Compounded
IPC
3.
Kagdapith
225/87
135(1) B.P. Act
Gonviction
4.
Maninagar
122/86
307/451. 147, 148,
149, 436, 440, 120-B
IPC, 25-C Arms
Act, 3, 4, Explosive.
Not proved.
5.
Maninagar
33/88
324, 504, 114 IPC,
Under investigation
135(1) B.P. Act
6.
Kagdapith
51/88
307, 232, 114 IPC Under investigation
135(1) B.P. Act
7.
Kagdapith
81/88
326. 114 IPC,
Under investigation
135(1) B.P. Act
THUS, on scrutiny of the complaints, proposals and other papers therewith, it appears that you are committing offences affecting human body in the said area by holding deadly weapons such as knife, razor, tamancha, sword, hockey stick, iron pipes etc. Therefore, you are a dangerous person as defined in S. 2(c) of the said Act. Further, you are robbing persons who pass from there for business or service by showing deadly weapons. In the said area in drunken condition you are demanding money from those passing from there. If they do not give money you are threatening them of murder by showing razor or Rampuri knife. You are beating peace-loving citizens in the said area in public believing that they are giving information of your activities to the police. By this you are coming in the way of maintenance of public order.
PARTICULARS in support of your aforesaid anti-social activities have been given by four persons residing in the said area or doing trade or business in the said area in their statements. Copies thereof are given herewith.
BEING afraid of you, the aforesaid witnesses have asked not to disclose their names and addresses, because they are afraid of damage to their person and property and their safety
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
