Back
1999 Supreme(Guj) 74
Gujarat High Court
Judgename :D.C.Srivastava
FARUKH SHAIKH IBRAHIM - Appellant
Versus
STATE - Respondent
S.C.A. 169 of 1999
Decided On : 02/24/1999
Headnote:Prevention of Anti Social Activities Act - Sec. 3(2) - Detention order - Subjective satisfaction of Detaining Authority - Petitioner on bail in the first registered offence thereafter externment notice was issued still then he committed another offence - Petitioner in jail in connection with offence & detaining authority knowing that drawn the inference that he was likely to commit similar offences on being released on bail - No fresh material was required to be placed for subjective satisfaction of the authority - Held, detention order perfectly legal - No interference required.
The detaining Authority has further mentioned that the petitioner is in Jail for the offence at Sr. No. 2 of the grounds of detention. The detaining Authority was therefore aware of the fact that the petitioner was in judicial custody in connection with CR. No. 175/98. If after issuance of show cause notice for proposed externment the petitioner could dare to commit another offence on 9.5.1998, the detaining Authority was justified in drawing inference that on being released on bail the petitioner was likely to commit similar offences. For this inference no fresh material was required to be placed before the detaining Authority because petitioner was on bail in the first registered offence, thereafter show cause notice for externment was issued and then he committed another offence. In these circumstances on being enlarged on bail he was likely to commit further offence. Thus, on this point also the subjective satisfaction on the detaining Authority requires no interference.
[Para 12]
( 1 ) THROUGH this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the detention order dated 22. 6. 1998 passed by the Police Commissioner, Surat City, under Section 3 (2) of the Prevention of Anti-social Activities Act (for short "pasa") and has prayed for quashing of the said detention order and has further prayed that he may be released from illegal detention.
( 2 ) FROM the grounds of detention it appears that the petitioner was found to be dangerous person in view of his repeated commission of offences punishable under Chapter : XVI and XVII of the Indian Penal Code. Beside this, two confidential witnesses narrated the two incidents which, in the opinion of the Detaining Authority, created situation prejudicial for maintenance of public order. The detaining Authority also considered alternative efficacious remedies and found that action under Section 107 and 110 of the Code of Criminal procedure could not be efficacious. Notice of externment was also issued to the petitioner under Section 56 (A) and (B) of the Bombay Police Act on 30. 3. 1998. Still the petitioner committed offence during the period when show cause notice was in force against him. The details of the subsequent commission of offence are to be found at Sr. No. 2 of the grounds of detention.
( 3 ) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner has challenged the impugned order only on one ground that the activities of the petitioner were not prejudicial for maintenance of public order.
( 4 ) FROM the grounds of detention it is clear that there was enough material before the detaining Authority to come to subjective satisfaction that the petitioner is a dangerous person. Under Section 2 (c) of the PASA a person is said to be dangerous person who habitually commits offences punishable under Chapter : XVI and XVII I. P. Code or under Chapter : V of the Arms Act. The two registered offences disclosed in the grounds of detention were certainly offences punishable under Chapter : XVI and XVII of the I. P. Code respectively. The first case was registered under Section 394 I. P. Code which is punishable under Chapter : XVII and the second case is punishable under Chapter : XVI I. P. Code. Besides this the two confidential witnesses also stated about the criminal activities of the petitioner in the company of his accomplices in which injuries were caused by sharped edged weapon, not only to the two witnesses, but also to the persons who collected to save the witnesses. In this way repetition of commission of offences punishable under Chapter XVI and XVII I. P. Code was fully made out before the detaining Authority. He was therefore justified in declaring the petitioner as dangerous person.
( 5 ) THE next point to be seen is whether a dangerous person can be detained under PASA or is there any further requirement for passing the detention order. Needless to say that a dangerous person cannot be detained under PASA only because he was involved in commission of offences punishable under Chapter : XVI and XVII I. P. Code. Unless the activities of such person are found to be prejudicial for maintenance of public order he cannot be preventively detained.
( 6 ) FOR this it is to be seen whether the material before the detaining Authority was sufficient to arrive at subjective satisfaction that the activities of the petitioner were prejudicial for maintenance of public order.
( 7 ) THE first material is registration of two criminal cases at CR Nos. 316/97 and 175/98. From the narration of events of these two cases given in the grounds of detention it can hardly be said that public order was disturbed on these two occasions.
( 8 ) THE next material is the statements of two confidential witnesses. The statement of the two confidential witnesses have to be examined in the light of extended meaning of activities being prejudicial for maintenance of public order as contained in Explanation to Sub-Section 4 of Section 3 of PASA.
