SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2013 Supreme(Guj) 420

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
S.G. SHAH, J.
VISAMANBHAI D DHOLA – Petitioner
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT THROUGH SECRETARY & Anr. – Respondents
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 595 of 2009
Decided on: 07.10.2013

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
MR DEEPAK THAKKAR FOR M/S THAKKAR ASSOC., ADVOCATE for the Petitioners No. 1 MS JIRGA JHAVERI, ASST.GOVERNMENT PLEADER for the Respondents No. 1 -2 RULE SERVED for the Respondents No. 1

Headnote:

Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 499 – Constitution of India, 1950 – Articles 14, 19, 21 & 226 – Gujarat Prevention of Anti-Social Activities Act, 1985 – Sections 3(2) & 2(c) – Petitioner herein has prayed to issue the appropriate writ, order or direction, against the State authorities to take appropriate action against the erring officers, including the detaining authority and sponsoring authority for misusing the powers exercised u/s.3(2) Gujarat Prevention of Anti Social Activities Act, 1985 claiming that it was in violation of Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India. Petitioner has also prayed to direct the respondent no.1 – State of Gujarat to adequately compensate him for illegal detention vide an order dated 16.12.2007 u/s.3 (2) of the PASA Act by the respondent no. 2 i.e. District Magistrate, Amreli being detaining authority. It is also prayed to direct the respondent no.1 – State to prosecute the respondent no.2 – District Magistrate, Amreli and the sponsoring authority for the offence u/s.499 of the Indian Penal Code for illegally detaining the petitioner under the PASA Act – Held, So far as quantum of compensation that may be awarded to the petitioner is concerned, without repeating the factual details and citations, it can be recollected that because of illegal detention for 45 days, the petitioner has been certainly defamed and his reputation has been at stake – keeping regards to the various aspects, which has been analysed, and taking note of the totality of the facts and circumstances, sum of Rs.1,50,000/- (One hundred fifty thousands only) is granted towards compensation to the petitioner – Petition Allowed

JUDGMENT

1. The petitioner herein has prayed to issue the appropriate writ, order or direction, against the State authorities to take appropriate action against the erring officers, including the detaining authority and sponsoring authority for misusing the powers exercised u/s.3(2) Gujarat Prevention of Anti Social Activities Act, 1985 (‘PASA Act’, for short) claiming that it was in violation of Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India. Petitioner has also prayed to direct the respondent no.1 – State of Gujarat to adequately compensate him for illegal detention vide an order dated 16.12.2007 u/s.3 (2) of the PASA Act by the respondent no. 2 i.e. District Magistrate, Amreli being detaining authority. It is also prayed to direct the respondent no.1 – State to prosecute the respondent no.2 – District Magistrate, Amreli and the sponsoring authority for the offence u/s.499 of the Indian Penal Code for illegally detaining the petitioner under the PASA Act.

2. Brief facts of the petitioner can be summarized as under:-

2.1. The petitioner was arrested as “dangerous persons” under the provisions of PASA Act by respondent no.2 vide an order-dated 16.12.2007. On the same day i.e. on 16.12.2007 he was detained in to Rajpipla Sub-Jail. Petitioner at Annexure-C with petition is said order of detention wherein it is disclosed and alleged that petitioner is not doing any labour work or business in Prempara, Dhari village where he is residing and he is involved in several illegal activities in nearby area and he is creating danger in the area with his associates and involved in antisocial activities and thereby disturbing the public order. It is further alleged in such order that because of high-handedness of the petitioner by outrageous behaviour and bullying, his victims are not coming forward to lodge the complaint against him. It is further stated that by such antisocial activities, petitioner is plundering and usurping – grabbing properties of innocent people and his illegal as well as anti-social activity is increasing day by day. It is also alleged that petitioner was eve-teasing women and charging huge amount as interest after giving money on credit to illiterate persons and taking undue advantage of the poor people. It is also stated that petitioner is ill treating common people by giving threats and coercion as well as by cheating innocent people in public so as to create a havoc in the society and thereby held an image of headstrong person in the society.

2.2. It is also stated in such order of detention that petitioner was giving threats to people and, therefore, people did not dare to file complaint against him and thereby courage and area of petitioner’s illegal activity has been increased.

2.3. It is also stated in such order of detention with specific reference to one application dated 8.5.2006 referring news item in daily newspaper like ‘Sands’ and ‘Gujarat Samachar’ of 6.5.2006 that several people of village Dhari has given a written complaint to CBI Branch, Ahmedabad regarding aforesaid illegal activities by the petitioner. It is also disclosed that pursuant to such letter by public, the District Court, Amreli has directed the Superintendent of Police to take necessary action by letter-dated 19.5.2006.

2.4. With reference to all above allegations, the District Magistrate, Amreli has decided to detain the petitioner under the PASA Act and in such order, two FIRs were disclosed. Both such FIRs were registered with the Dhari police station, one on 5.5.2006 being C.R. No.-I 28 of 2006 and another on 5.6.2007 being C.R.No.I-20 of 2007. However, so far as first FIR for the offences u/ss.392, 323, 506(2) and 114 of the IPC r/w. Section 25(1)(B) of the Arms Act was concerned, though there are allegations that petitioner has beaten the complainant for recovering the loan amount and shown Tamancha to the complainant, practically, only N.C. was filed because complainant had confirmed that no such incident had taken place as a




















































Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

SupremeToday

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top