Back
1999 Supreme(Guj) 296
Gujarat High Court
Judgename :R.M.Doshit
NIRAV KHEMSHANKER VYAS - Appellant
Versus
COMMISSIONER OF POLICE - Respondent
S.C.A. 7809 of 1998
Decided On : 06/29/1999
Headnote:Gujarat Prevention of Anti-social Activities Act, 1985 — Sec. 3(1) — Orders of detention against all the three petitioners — Ground of being dangerous persons of activities prejudicial to maintenance of public order — The petitioners a Police Sub-Inspector & the Constables are co-accused in an offence registered as CR No. 380/98 in Kagdapith Police Station for offences punishable under Secs. 318, 506(2), 170 & 114 IPC & Sec. 25(1) Arms Act — Besides this registered offence, there are incidents committed by petitioners which are stated by witnesses though they are not followed by formal complaints — Incidents relates to robberies committed by petitioners at point of revolver — In both the incident crowd has gathered but petitioners aimed revolver at them creating terror — Crowd had became panicky & ran away — There is no reason to disbelieve the statements of these witnesses to arrive at subjective satisfaction in respect of petitioners being dangerous persons — Besides their activities are detrimental to the maintenance of public order & unless prevented the petitioners are likely to repeat the similar offences — In the facts impugned orders of detention made against petitioners donot call for interference.
For bringing a person within the four corners of the meaning of `dangerous person as defined in Sec. 2 (c) of the Act, the detenu must be shown to be a `habitual offender. It must also be shown that the detenu habitually commits or attempts to commit or abets commission of offence punishable under Chapter XVI or XVII of the Indian Penal Code or Chapter V of the Arms Act. The definition is clear and unambiguous and in view of the judgments referred to hereinabove, it does not warrant further deliberation. The question is whether it is registered offence alone which can be taken into consideration or the incidents stated by the witnesses, not followed by a formal complaint can also be relied upon. None of the above referred judgments deals with this question. In my view, if the statements are recorded by the sponsoring authority and are believed to be true and the detaining authority has recorded his subjective satisfaction regarding trustworthiness of such witness and the statements made by them, there is no reason why such incidents should not be relied upon for arriving at the subjective satisfaction in respect of a person being a `dangerous person.
[Para 11]
In the present case, the offence registered against the petitioners and the two incidents narrated by the witnesses disclose the commission of offences of similar nature in the same manner. Besides, all the said three offences are alleged to have been committed in the month of August, 1998 i.e., they are committed in quick succession. The three offences of a similar nature punishable under Chapter XVI and XVII of the IPC and Chapter V of the Arms Act would certainly make the petitioners habitual offenders and as a consequence, the `dangerous person.
[Para 12]
Court is, therefore, of the view that the petitioners are habitual offenders and consequently the dangerous person. Besides, their activities were detrimental to the maintenance of public order and unless prevented, the petitioners were likely to repeat the similar offences.
[Para 13]
( 1 ) HEARD the learned Advocates for the respective parties.
( 2 ) THE petitioners in all these three petitions, a Police Sub-Inspector and the contables, are co-accused in an offence registered as C. R. No. 380 of 1998 in Kagdapith Police Station for the offences punishable under Secs. 318, 506 (2), 170 and 114 I. P. C. and under Sec. 25 (1) of the Arms Act. Pursuant to the said offence, all the writ petitioners are detained under the orders of preventive detention dated 1st September, 1998 made by the Commissioner of police, Ahmedabad under the powers conferred upon him under sub-sec. 1 of Sec. 3 of the Gujarat Prevention of Anti-Social Activities Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as, the Act ). All the three detention orders are based on the same evidence and common questions of law arise in all these three petitions. The petitions are, therefore, disposed of by this common judgment.
( 3 ) THE grounds of detention served upon the respective petitioner along with the order of detention suggest that apart from the above referred offence registered against the writ petitioners, further information has been received by the concerned authorities in the form of statements by the witnesses. The first witness, whose identity has been withheld, has stated that on 10th August, 1998 when he was passing nearby Raipur Darwaja, three persons came and detained him and asked him to open his bag. These three persons feigned themselves to be personnel from the Office of Directorate of Prohibition, looking for narcotic traffickers. Upon inspection of his bag, nothing objectionable was found. The witness thereupon was threatened of a case under the Narcotic Act and at the point of revolver, the witness was robbed of Rs. 7000/ -. This incident attracted passers-by and a crowd gathered. On petitioners (i. e. , the petitioner in Special Civil Application No. 7809 of 1998) aiming a revolver at the crowd, the people became panicky and started running away. The incident narrated by the second witness is that of llth August, 1998. The petitioners are alleged to have visited the place of business of witness at around 9. 00 Oclock in the evening and projected themselves to be personnel from the office of directorate of Prohibition and stated that they had received information that the stock of liquor was stored in the shop of the witness and they had come to raid the premises. Upon inspection, no liquor was found from the witnesss shop. When the witness stated that he never consumed the liquor nor did he keep liquor, the irritated petitioner-Nirav Vyas, the petitioner in Special Civil application No. 7809 of 1998, took out his revolver and aimed at the witness and the two others abused the witness. The three, thereafter robbed the witness of Rs. 5000/-, his turnover of the day. Upon witness demanding for the said money, all the three dragged the witness out of his shop to the public road and started beating him. The witness having shouted for help, the people gathered there. Even the petitioners abused the people gathered there and the petitioner nirav Vyas aimed his revolver at the crowd, creating terror. The crowd became panicky and ran helter-skelter. The witness being afraid of retaliation by the petitioners did not complain about the incident in question.
( 4 ) LEARNED Advocate Mr. Dave appearing for the petitioners has submitted that neither of the petitioners can be said to be habitual offender, and therefore, cannot be said to be dangerous person as defined in Clause (c) of Sec. 2 of the Act, nor can they be said to have acted in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. In absence of both these ingredients, the orders of detention made against the petitioners are not tenable. He has submitted that a single offence has been registered against the petitioners and no person can be detained under the Act for a solitary offence alleged to have been committed by him. He has submitted that while calling a person to be
