INDERSINGH GULABSINH SIKH Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has been detained under the provisions of Gujarat Prevention of Anti-Social Activities Act 1985 (PASA for short) by the order of the Police Commissioner of the City of Ahmedabad passed on 17-10-1992. The detenu is said to be involved in 9 different cases and all of them pertain to illegally dealing in fire arms like home made revolvers and country made pistols. Seven cases have been registered at different police stations within the area of the Police Commissioner one case has been registered at Sarkhej Police Station and the remaining one is registered at Panigate Police Station of Baroda city. From the details given in the grounds of detention at page 13 onwards as well as from the supporting material supplied to the detenu along with the detention order it can be gathered that as per the detaining authority the detenu is engaged apparently in a business of manufacturing locks and keys but at the same time he is making use of this manufacturing facility for forgoing out revolvers and country pistols. In the course of survey operation carried out by survey squad of the City of Ahmedabad 10 revolvers and 3 country made pistols were said to have been sold by the detenu to different individuals and all of them were of the manufacture of the detenu. He is also said to be manufacturing cartridges for the weapons that he manufactures.

(2.) Based on these 9 cases as well as statement of 4 witnesses the detaining authority has felt that the detenu is a dangerous person and there is an imminent need to detain him so that he can be prevented from indulging into the activities of the aforesaid nature any more. The cases that he is involved range date-wise from 18-12-1991 to 25 The statements recorded on or about 1st of October 1992 relate to two different instances. One is of 2nd September 1992 and the other is of 13 September 1992. In respect of these two instances there are statements of the victim of the alleged incident and as ex- witness of the same. That is how in all statements of four witnesses have been submitted before the detaining authority by the sponsoring authority and relied on for the purpose of passing the aforesaid order.

(3.) As usual we have gone through the different dates with regard to the representation as well as approval and reference to the advisory Board. As will be presently seen the action of the detaining authority and that of the State cannot be said to be faulted at all in this connection.