ABIDALI USMANALI SAIYED Vs. DISTRICT MAGISTRATE KAIRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) . Because of the careless and callous manner in which the detention order came to be passed against the petitioner, the same will have to be quashed and this petition will have to be allowed.

(2.) . The District Magistrate, Kheda, passed an order on 14-9-1989 for detention of the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner is a bootlegger and a headstrong person and his activities have resulted in creating an atmosphere of fear and terror and feeling of insecurity. In the ground of detention, 17 Criminal Cases which came to be registered against the petitioner are mentioned and it is stated that on careful scrutiny of those complaints, it clearly appears that the petitioner is bootlegger. Thereafter, 10 statements recorded by the police are referred to, which show that the petitioner is carrying on the bootlegger activity and in order to carry on that activity, he has indulged in the acts of violenece also and that has resulted in creation of an atmosphere of terror and fear and feeling of insecurity.

(3.) . The learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the order of detention has been passed by the District Magistrate without application of mind. It is also submitted that out of the 17 cases mentioned by the detaining authority, the petitioner was acquiring in as many as 10 cases. First Information Reports of the 3 cases did not disclose at all that the petitioner is a bootlegger. It is now well settled that if a person is acquitted of an offence by a competent Criminal Court, then that case cannot be made a ground for his detention, unless the detaining authority finds that the acquittal was a result of some technical flow or because the witnesses did not come forward to support the prosecution or that the witnesses were won over by the accused. If after considering the order of acquittal passed by the competent Criminal Court, the detaining authority finds some justification for relying upon the incident and makes it a ground of detention, then that can be said to be quite proper. But it is not permissible to rely upon such a case without seeing the decision of the Court and coming to the conclusion that the accused in that case was acquittal because of some technical point or that witnesses had not come forward to support the prosecution because of the fear of the accused or that the witnesses were won-over by him.