( 1 ) HEARD ld. counsel Mr. Kamlesh Kachhavah for ld. counsel Ms. DR Kachhavah for the petitioner detenu and ld. AGP Ms. HB Punani for the State.

( 2 ) BY this petition under Article 226 read with Articles 21 and 22 (5) of the Constitution of India, the petitioner detenu has challenged the legality and validity of the order of detention dated 10. 06. 2004 passed by the Police Commissioner, Vadodara City in exercise of the powers conferred on him by Section 3 (2) of The Gujarat Prevention of Anti-Social Activities Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as the PASA Act) against the petitioner-detenu. The petitioner detenu has been branded as "boot-legger" as defined under Sec. 2 (b) of the PASA ACt.

( 3 ) THE order under challenge is based on the grounds considered by the detaining authority that are conveyed to the detenu. It reveals that for passing the detention order, the detaining authority has mainly considered the fact of registration of four different offences registered against the present petitioner detenu under different sections of Bombay Prohibition Act between 07. 07. 2002 and 08. 06. 2004 i. e. within a span of approximately about 2 years. Details qua all these offences are given in a tabular form in the grounds of detention supplied to the detenu. The detaining authority has also considered certain facts stated by two witnesses in their statements recorded by the sponsoring authority.

( 4 ) THE petitioner has challenged the legality and validity of the order of detention on number of grounds as mentioned in the memo of the petition. Ld. counsel Mr. Kachhavah for the petitioner, has taken this Court through the contentions raised in the petition. However, ld. counsel has focussed his arguments mainly on the ground that the fact of registration of four criminal offences punishable under the Bombay Prohibition Act itself can not be said to be bootlegging activities prejudicial to the maintenance of public order when statements recorded by the sponsoring authority do not inspire any confidence. The merits of the statements recorded by the sponsoring authority may not be tested. However, the genuineness of the statement if is found under serious cloud, then it should not be given any weightage is the backbone of the submission. Details of the offences registered against the detenu are given in tabular form in the grounds of detention which reveals that first offence is registered on 07. 07. 2002 and last offence is of 08. 06. 2004. So, in the span of about 2 years, four offences have been registered. Excepting the last two offences, there is a clear gap of more than 5 months. The offence registered at Sr. No. 3 is of 01. 04. 2004 and offence at Sr. No. 4 is of 08. 06. 2004. Two statements recorded by the Sponsoring Authority are of07. 06. 2004 and 08. 06. 2004. According to ld. AGP Ms. Punani, the Sponsoring Authority practically was about to place the papers for obtaining appropriate preventive detention order on or about 08. 06. 2004, the detenu was found involved in the latter part of the very same day in similar offence punishable under the Bombay Prohibition Act i. e. last offence and order of detention is passed on 10. 06. 2004. It is argued by ld. counsel appearing for the detenu that these two statements are probably ante-dated. On close scrutiny, it transpires that the detenu was arrested in connection with the last offence on 08. 06. 2004 at 19. 30 hours. So, when the alleged statement of witness No. 1 came to be recorded on 07. 06. 2004, the fact of fourth and last offence was not available with the sponsoring authority. So, for the purpose of first statement recorded on 07. 06. 2004, relevant date of last offence would be 01. 04. 2004. Therefore, from 01. 04. 2004 till 07. 06. 2004, there were no statements before the sponsoring authority against the present petitioner. The second statement is of 08. 06. 2004. So, this Court has reason to believe that genuinely if second statement was recorded o