SHANTILAL PREMJIBHAI KOLI PATEL Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has filed this petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, challenging the proposed order of detention dated 8.10.2011, which is alleged to have been passed by the District Magistrate, Ahmedabad, in exercise of provisions of Section 3 of the Prevention of Antisocial Activities Act, 1985 (for short PASA), with a view to preventing him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order by District Magistrate, branding him to be Dangerous person, as defined under Section 2(c) of PASA.

(2.) THE case of the petitioner is that the detention order is passed by the District Magistrate, Ahmedabad dated 8.10.2011 against the petitioner directing to detain him as Dangerous person. That FIR was lodged against the petitioner on 29.7.2009 for the offences punishable under Sections 332, 504, 323, 506(2) and 114 of the IPC and under Section 3(1) and (10) of Prevention of Atrocity (Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe) Act, 1989 by one Manilal Nathalal Chavda with Viramgam Rural Police Station being CR No.41 of 2009. In the said case the petitioner has been acquitted by the learned Special Judge, Viramgam by judgment and order dated 22.10.2010. Some other offences were also registered against the petitioner. That an FIR being CR No.I-14 of 2011 was lodged against the petitioner by one Dilipbhai Babubhai Ramoliya with Viramgam Rural Police Station on 12.2.2011 for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 571 and 114 of the IPC. THE dispute disclosed in the said FIR was settled in the year 2009 wherein money was in fact not received by the petitioner as set out in the body of the FIR. In the said settlement one Anwar Habiyani was the culprit in the entire incident. Four cheques were given in pursuance of the said settlement. THE first informant misused the said cheques and filed complaint under Section 138 of the N.I.Act.

(3.) ON the other hand, learned AGP Mr. K.P.Raval has vehemently contended that the petitioner is the habitual offender and, therefore, no leniency is required to be shown against the petitioner. He has contended that earlier also criminal cases have been filed against the petitioner. The petitioner was avoiding the execution of the order dated 13.9.2011 passed by respondent No.2 under Section 3(1) of the PASA Act wherein the grounds of detention were incorporated. The said detention order was approved by the Home Department, State of Gujarat under Section 3(3) of PASA Act. He, therefore, contended that looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, petition may be dismissed.