RANIBEN HASMUKHBHAI KUMBHAR Vs. COMMISSIONE ROF POLICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this petition, the petitioner-detenu has questioned the legality and validity of the detention order dated 8.12.2002 recorded by the Commissioner of Police, Rajkot city, Rajkot, the respondent No.1, whereby, the petitioner came to be detained 3(2) of the Gujarat Prevention of Anti Social Activities Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as "the PASA Act"), with a view to prevent her from acting, in any manner, prejudicial to the maintenance of public order in the Rajkot City `A' Division Police Station area.

(2.) The petitioner was served with a copy of the impugned order of detention with a direction to treat her as Class-II detenu and the petitioner was also supplied with the grounds of detention along with documents running in 46 pages, interalia alleging that the petitioner was a "prohibition bootlegger" in terms of the definition as given under Section 2(b) of the PASA Act, and that she was carrying on anti social activities pertaining to illicit liquor business, and in the background of two cases registered for the offences punishable under the Bombay Prohibition Act, which was supported by the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority, arrived at on the strength of statements of two privileged witnesses under Section 9(2) of the PASA Act, the impugned order of detention was made. In short, the detention order characterizing the petitioner as "prohibition bootlegger" came to be passed with a view to preventing her from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order.

(3.) Mr.Anil S.Dave, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner-detenu has raised first contention that the copies of the documents supplied to the petitioner are not legible. This ground is seriously controverted and traversed by the learned Assistant Government Pleader. It may be noted that such a contention has not been raised in the writ petition. It is raised for the first time at the time of hearing of this petition. Again, the contention is that some of the expressions of the contents in the bunch of 46 pages of documents are faintly stated. Even if it is so accepted at its face value, it cannot be said for a moment that the detenu was deprived of understanding the substance of the charge or the grounds. Apart from that, in fact, it cannot be said that the said documents are in any way in the form of illegible nature which would not bring home the meaning and substance of the grounds of detention. Therefore, the first contention is without any substance and must be rejected. Accordingly, it shall stand rejected.