HAFIJUDDIN FAZLUDDIN KAZI Vs. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE AHMEDABAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Hafijuddin Kazi the petitioner-detenu herein challenges, by way of filing the present petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India, the orders of detention passed by the Commissioner of Police, Ahmedabad City, the respondent No. 1 herein, dated 11-9-1991 Annexure 'A', saying that the petitioner-detenu is a dangerous person within the meaning of PASAA, 1985 and that, therefore, he requires to be preventively detained under the same. The orders under challenge dated 11-9-1991 at Annexure 'A' have been duly furnished to the petitioner-detenu.

(2.) The grounds of detention would show that a singular crime, namely C. R. No. 168 of 1991 was registered at the Ellisbridge Police Station on 15-3-1991 for the alleged commission of the offences punishable under Sees. 365, 342, 506(1) and under Sec. 114 of Indian Penal Code. The grounds of detention, do further go to show that because of the registration of the above said offences at the Ellisbridge Police Station against the petitioner-detenu, he appears to be a 'dangerous person' within the meaning of Sec. 2(c) of the PASAA, 1985. It is also further recited and incorporated in the grounds of detention at Annexure 'B', that certain statements of the witnesses recorded by the sponsoring authority, also go to show that the petitioner-detenu is a dangerous person and that, his activities affect adversely or are likely to affect adversely, the maintenance of the public order. It is therefore that, according to the detaining authority, the petitionerdeteau was required to be preventively detained under the relevant provisions of PASA, 1985.

(3.) The learned Advocate Mr. Kapadia who appears on behalf of the petitioner-detenu has urged that the detaining authority could not have come to the subjective satisfaction that the petitioner-detenu is a 'dangerous person' within the meaning of Sec. 2(c) of the PASAA, 1985, only on the basis of the registration of a singular crime against him at the Ellisbridge Police Station. Taking up the question regarding certain statements allegedly referred in the grounds of detention and, the copies of which have been duly supplied to the petilioner-deteuu, Mr. Kapadia has urged that, though the statements are vague in nature as the exact date, time and place of the alleged occurrence have not been given, and that, even if those statements are to be accepted on their face value, a clear-cut case regarding the adverse effect on the public order situation has not been carved out. It is on these contentions that Mr. Kapadia seeks to challenge the impugned orders of detention dated 11-9-1991. A reference to the memo of the petition filed on behalf of the petitioner-detenu would go to show that various other contentions have been raised therein. But as the above said are the only contentions raised by Mr. Kapadia before us, we do not find it necessary to enter into the details or the niceties of the other contentions raised in the memo of the petition. The immediate reaction against the above said contentions raised by Mr. Kapadia, emanating from Mr. Dave the learned A. P. P. is that, even from a singular incident which appears to be a crime according to the law of land, and in respect of which the offence has been registered at the concerned police station, the subjective satisfaction can be arrived at by the authority passing the detention orders, that the petitioner-detenu requires to be preventively detained. Mr. Dave has also urged that the statements of certain witnesses recorded by the police would serve as a meaningful resource for the purpose of coming to the conclusion that the petitioner-detenu was required to be preventively detained. Thus, in the submissions of Mr. Dave the learned A.P.P. appearing on behalf of the respondents, the contentions raised by the petitioner-detenu through the learned Advocate Mr. Kapadia are not sustainable.