MALABHAI NATHBHAI DEVIPUJAK Vs. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution, is directed against the order of detention passed by the Commissioner of Police, Rajkot city, against the petitioner in exercise of powers conferred under Section 2 [c] of the Gujarat Prevention of Antisocial Activities Act, 1985 [ the PASA Act ]. A few material and important facts may be highlighted at this stage.

(2.) The detention order is passed against the detenu under Sub Section [2] of Section 3 of the Gujarat Prevention of Antisocial Activities Act, 1985 [ the PASA Act ] with a view to preventing him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order in the area pertaining to Malviya Police Station and Ganghigram Police Station, Rajkot city, in exercise of powers conferred under Section 3 [2] of the PASA Act. The detenu was served with the copy of the order of detention dated 27.9.2002. The detenu was also supplied with the grounds of detention along with the documents running into 89 pages.

(3.) The respondent authority has treated and branded the detenu as a " dangerous person" within the meaning of Section 2 [c] of the PASA Act and, therefore, the detaining authority has referred to and relied upon cases registered at Malviya Police Station and Ganghigram Police Station, Rajkot city vide C.R.No.340/2002 dated 17.9.2002 for the offence punishable under Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code, C.R.No.293/2002 dated 03.9.2002 form the offence punishable under Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code, C.R.No.310/2002 dated 17.9.2002 for the offence punishable under Section 379 of the I P C, C.R.No.312/2002 dated 17.9.2002 for the offence punishable under Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code and C.R.No.313/2002 dated 17.9.2002 for the offence punishable under Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code, all of them, one aforesaid FIR registered with Malviya Police Station and four aforesaid FIRs registered with Gandhigram Police Station, Rajkot city, and the aforesaid cases have been shown as pending investigation as well as trial. Therefore, it becomes clear that the petitioner is involved in a theft activities and he is carrying dangerous activities and therefore, he is branded as "dangerous person"