MANGABHAI CHANDUBHAI VASAVA Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has challenged the legality and validity of the detention order dated October 16 1992 whereby the learned District Magistrate Baroda respondent no. 2 herein in exercise of his powers under sub-section (2) of Section 3 of The Gujarat Prevention of Anti-social Activities Act 1985 (hereinafter referred to PASA Act) ordered to detain the petitioner with a view to preventing him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. The petitioner was supplied with grounds of detention on the same day for his impugned detention.

(2.) It is evident from the grounds furnished to the detenu that the petitioner-detenu was involved in nine criminal cases under the provisions of the Bombay Prohibition Act 1949 Four statements of the eye witnesses were also recorded to the effect that the petitioner was indulging in the activities as bootleggar. The second respondent being subjectively satisfied on the materials placed before him concluded that it was necessary to detain the petitioner with a view to prevent him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order as he was indulging in the activities of bootleggar as defined in section 3 (4) of PASA Act.

(3.) Mr. P.B. Majmudar learned advocate for the petitioner submitted that out of nine criminal cases referred to in the main grounds of detention the petitioner was acquitted in five cases prior to the passing of the impugned detention order and this fact was not taken into consideration by the respondent no.2 as such the subjective satisfaction of the second respondent was vitiated. In the submission of Mr. Majmudar this has rendered the impugned detention order of the petitioner as invalid and illegal. Mr. Majmudar further submitted that the detaining authority did not apply its mind while passing the detention order by not considering the acquittals recorded in favour of the petitioner and as such the detention order is improper and illegal. Mr. Majmudar relied upon the case of D.S. Agarwal vs. Police Commissioner reported in AIR 1989 SC 1282 in respect of his submission that the fact of acquittal of detenu in five of the cases mentioned in the grounds was not placed before the detaining authority and this has vitiated the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority. We do not find any substance this submission of Mr. Majmudar in view of the provisions of Section 6 of PASA Act. Section 6 of PASA Act reads as under: