SALIMBHAI RUSTAMBHAI VORA Vs. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY way of this petition, the detenu has challenged the order of detention dated 29.02.2012 passed by respondent No.1, under the provisions of subsec (2) of Section 3 of the Gujarat Prevention of Anti Social Activities Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as "PASA Act").

(2.) LEARNED advocate Mr.K.M.Antani appearing for the petitionerdetenu has invited my attention to the order of detention dated 29.02.2012 by which the detenu was arrested and sent to Special Jail at Bhuj. The grounds of detaining the accused are that one offence was registered against the petitioner under the provisions of Section 5, 6, 6(b)(1)(2)(3), 8 and 9 of the Mumbai Animal Preservation Act, 1954 and Section 11(L) of the Animal Cruelty Act and Section 335 and 336 of G.P.M.C. Act and 135(1) of the G.P.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.

(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.