HUSSAIN IBRAHIM MOKHA Vs. DISTRICT MAGISTRATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY way of this petition, the detenu has challenged the order of detention dated 31.7.2012 passed by District Magistrate, KutchBhuj under the provisions of subsec (2) of Section 3 of the Gujarat Prevention of AntiSocial Activities Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as "PASA Act").

(2.) LEARNED advocate Mr.Ashish Dagli appearing for the petitionerdetenu has invited my attention to the order of detention dated 31.7.2012 by which the detenu was arrested and sent to Jamnagar District Jail. The grounds of detaining the accused are that one offence was registered against the petitioner under the provisions of Sections 5, 6, 8, 10 of the Gujarat Animal Preservation Act, 1954, and Section 11(L) of the Animal Cruelty Act. He is, therefore, a "cruel person" as defined under Section 2(bbb) of the PASA Act. Learned advocate appearing for the petitioner has submitted that, except this solitary offence, there is no material with the detaining authority to detain the petitioner under the provisions of PASA Act. It is submitted that the order is vitiated because only on the basis of one offence registered against the petitioner, and in absence of any other material to show involvement of the petitioner in similar activities, the detaining authority has recorded a subjective satisfaction that the petitioner is a cruel person. The definition of cruel person requires habitual involvement and, therefore, the subjective satisfaction and the consequential order are vitiated. It is submitted by learned advocate for the petitioner that the order of detention qua coaccused has been quashed and set aside by this Court today in Special Civil Application No.11127 of 2012.

(3.) IT is clear from reading of the definition that the person to be branded as a cruel person has to be either a member or leader of a gang habitually committing or attempting to commit or abetting the commission of offence punishable under Section 8 of the Bombay Animal Preservation Act, 1954. The term "habitually" examined from any angle, literal or legal, would require presence of an element of repetitiveness. In the instant case, barring one offence registered against the petitioner, there was no material before the detaining authority to record a satisfaction that the petitioner is habitual or repetitively involved in the offences.