(1.) This Letters Patent Appeal is directed against the judgement and order dated 13.4.2000, whereby the petitioner's Special Civil Application was dismissed against the detention order dated 25.8.1999 passed by the detaining authority against the present appellant in exercise of powers under section 3(2) of the Gujarat Prevention of Anti Social Activities Act, 1985 ("PASA Act" for brevity). The detention order was passed on 25.8.1999 by the District Magistrate, Bhavnagar. The grounds which were annexed with the detention order show that on the date of passing of the detention order, six criminal cases dated 18.3.1998, 22.9.1998, 8.10.1998, 12.1.1999, 21.5.1999 and 10.7.1999, were pending against the petitioner under sections 65 and 66 of the Bombay Prohibition Act. After narrating the details of such criminal cases, the detaining authority has observed that keeping in view the anti social activities of being engaged in the business of unauthorised liquor coupled with the criminal and violent activities, the appellant was an obstacle in the matters of public health and public order. Besides the criminal cases the detaining authority has also referred to the statements made by three witnesses dated 18.8.1999 with regard to the incidents dated 17.7.1999, 12.8.1999 and 1.8.1999 respectively.
(2.) Regarding the contention which was raised that exercise of powers under section 9(2) of the PASA Act in this case infringed the detenu's right of making representation in respect of those statements, the learned Single Judge has held that the right of the detenu of making effective representation in respect of the anonymous statements can be said to have been infringed. However, the learned Single Judge has observed that the order of detention is passed not only on the basis of the statements of the anonymous (undisclosed) witnesses but on the basis of the offence registered against the detenu. It has been noticed that out of the six cases, a defect has been pointed out in respect of C.R. No.35/98 of Talaja Police Station and it was shown that the copy of the charge sheet counter refers to C.R. No.34/98. The learned Single Judge has observed that there is a reference to C.R. No.35/98 in another column and even if benefit of this defect is given to the detenu there remains five offences registered against him. The learned single Judge has concluded that each of the offences is to withstand as an independent ground for detention and whereas there is no defect of any nature in these five criminal cases; the order of detention is not vitiated. So far as the proposition of law that there can be no separate detention orders for each of the grounds is concerned, no exception thereto can be taken. However, the learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that these grounds with regard to the registered criminal cases under the Prohibition Act even if taken to be existing against the appellant, they do not involve a question of any breach of public order and on the basis of these cases, at the most, a case of breach of law and order can be said to be there, which is not at all sufficient for the purpose of detention under the PASA Act. Learned counsel for the appellant cited the following cases:
(3.) Learned counsel for the appellant has referred to the observations made by the Supreme Court in para 5 wherein the Supreme Court has said that the what is required to be considered in such cases is whether there was credible material before the detaining authority on the basis of which a reasonable inference could have been drawn as regards the adverse effect on the maintenance of public order as defined by the Act. The contention is that touchstone in such cases is the presence of the credible material before the detaining authority.