Back
1999 Supreme(Guj) 414
Gujarat High Court
Judgename :K.G.Balakrishnan, M.S.Parikh
FIROZKHAN HUSEINMIYA RATHOD - Appellant
Versus
COMMISSIONER OF POLICE - Respondent
L.P.A. 979 of 1999
Decided On : 08/18/1999
Headnote:Letters Patent Appeal No. 979 of 1999-Decided on 18th -August, 1999<186
Letters Patent Appeal-Clause 15-Gujarat Prevention -of Anti Social Activities Act, 1985-Secs. 3, 2(c)-Detention-Dangerous -persons -Referring the material on record Single Judge came to -the findings that incidents narrated by witnesses were quite proximate -in point of time & they clearly revealed that appellants could be -said to be habitual offender as contemplated in Sec. 2(c) of the Act --He also came to the conclusion that the activities of the appellant -were detrimental to maintenance of public order & unless prevented -there was possibility of the appellants to commit/repeat offences-He -consequently upheld the orders of detention-Referring to the decisions -cited in LPA Court observed that what has been said in the these decisions -is that the statements of witnesses must be consistant of specific -incidents & they should not be general & vague in nature-In the -instant case satisfaction of the detaining authority is not based -on the incident, culminating in registration of Criminal Case but -also the incidents that happened on 26.7.1998 & 2.8.1998 about which -witnesses stated before detaining authority & therefore satisfaction -of detaining authority that detenue was dangerous person could not -be held vitiated-Contention that subjective satisfaction of the -detaining authority stands vitiated in the case as acts and activities -of petitioners in question would not disturb public order is also -without force & can not be accepted-Court referring the decision -of Apex Court held that activities of the detenue trying to extort -money from ordinary citizens by putting them to fear of death & on -their refusal to part with money to drag them on public road, as similar -to facts in the case would undoubtedly affect even tempo of life of -the society-It is not a mere disturbance of law & order but tends -to disturb public order & as such would warrant passing of impugned -order.
The learned Single Judge referred to all the decisions -and has come to the conclusion that it was not a case of a solitary -incident as referred to in the decisions which were canvassed. According -to the learned Single Judge the incidents narrated by the witnesses -were quite proximate in point of time and they clearly revealed that -the appellants could be said to be habitual offenders so as to bring -them within the definition of `dangerous person as contained in Sec. -2(c) of the PASA Act. The learned Single Judge also came to the conclusion -that the activities of the appellants were detrimental to maintenance -of public order and unless prevented there was possibility of the -appellants to commit/repeat offences.
[Para 3]
It might be noted from the grounds of detention, which -have been referred to by the learned Single Judge that there are specific -incidents flowing from the statements of the witnesses which have -been recorded. The modus operandi which is revealed run parallel to -the registered case. In that view of the matter, it is not possible -for us to accept the submissions of Mr. Dave for holding that the -appellants could not be branded as `dangerous persons within the -meaning of Sec. 2(c) of the PASA Act.
[Para 8]
In Amanulla Khan s case the Apex Court has observed and -held that the activities of the detenu trying to extort money from -ordinary citizens by putting them to fear of death and on their refusal -to part with the money, to drag them on public road would undoubtedly -affect the even tempo of life of the society and therefore, such activities -cannot be said to be a mere disturbance of law and order. In the case -on hand the extortion of money by generating fear of death and refusal -to part with the same resulting in assault and beating in public are -similar features with an added features of generation of fear in the -public mind that the police personnel might indulge in false implication -of any citizen in serious offence/s under the Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic -Substances Act, 1985. Thus, the activities of the appellants were -thus such as would legitimately warrant for required subjective satisfaction -of the detaining authority for passing impugned orders of detention.
( 1 ) ALTHOUGH the notices have been issued in all these Letters patent Appeals, the learned Counsel for the appellants and the learned A. G. P. , have argued the matters and, therefore, the same are being finally disposed of.
( 2 ) ALL the three Letters Patent Appeals arise from a common judgment rendered by the learned single Judge on 28-6-1999 and 29-6-1999 in Special Civil application Nos. 8629, 8625 and 7809 of 1998 moved by the three appellants challenging their detention under Sec. 3 of the Gujarat Prevention of Anti-Social activities Act, 1985 (for short pasa Act ). All the detention orders were based on the same evidence. The three appellants being respectively the Police Sub- inspector and the Constables happened to be co-accused in an offence registered at C. R. No. 380 of 1998 in Kagdapith Police Station for the offences punishable under Secs. 318, 506 (2), 170 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code (for short i. P. C. ) as also Sec. 25 (1) of the Arms Act. The grounds of detention served upon the respective appellants along with the orders of detention indicate that over and above the aforesaid registered offences, further information has been received by the concerned authorities in the form of statements of witnesses. The first witness whose identity has been withheld stated that on 10-8-1998 when he was passing nearby outside Raipur Gate, three persons came and intercepted him and asked him to open his bag. These three persons claimed themselves to be the personnel from the office of the Directorate of Prohibition. Upon inspection of the bag, nothing objectionable could be found. The witness thereupon was threatened to be involved in a false case of narcotics and was robbed of Rs. 7,000. 00. This incident attracted passers by and the crowd gathered. On the appellant being the petitioner in S. C. A. No. 7809 of 1998 aiming a revelator at the crowd, people became panicky and started running away. The second witness narrated the incident dated 11-8-1998. According to him, the appellants visited the place of business of witness around 9-00 Oclock in the evening and projected themselves to be personnel from the office of the Directorate of Prohibition and stated that they have received information to the effect that stock of liquor was stored in the shop of the witness and they had given threat to raid the premises. Upon inspection, no liquor was found from the shop of the witness. The witness stated that he neither consumed liquor nor did he keep it. This irritated the appellant nirav Vyas petitioner of Special Civil Application No. 7809 of 1998, who took out his revolder and aimed at the witness. The two others also abused the witness. All the three thereafter extorted Rs. 5,000. 00. Upon the witness demanding the money back, all the three dragged him out of his shop on to the public road and started beating him. The witness shouted for help. People gathered there. The appellants abused the people who gathered there and the appellant Nirav Vyas aimed his revolver at the people. This generated terror amongst the people, who became panicky and disbursed. This witness being afraid did not complain about the incident in question.
( 3 ) THE appellants canvassed before the learned single Judge that the appellants could not be said to be habitual offenders and, therefore, they could not be branded as dangerous persons as defined in clause (c) of Sec. 2 of the PASA Act. They could also not be said to have acted in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. Number of decisions were pressed into service in support of these contentions. The learned single Judge referred to all the decisions and has come to the conclusion that it was not a case of a solitary incident as referred to in the decisions which were canvassed. According to the learned single Judge the incidents narrated by the witnesses were quite proximate in point of time and they clearly revealed that the appellants could be said to be hab
