SHOYEB KHAN NAVABKHAN PATHAN Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PERUSED the petition, materials supplied to the detenu, detention order and affidavit -in -reply filed by the detaining authority and heard learned advocate Mr. Atit Thakore for Ms. Banna Dutta, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.G.P. Mr. Bhavesh Hazare for the respondent -State. By way of this petition, the detenu has challenged the order of detention dated 27.9.2013 passed by the respondent authority under the provisions of sub -sec. (2) of Section 3 of the Gujarat Prevention of Anti -Social Activities Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as "PASA Act").

(2.) LEARNED advocate Mr. Atit Thakore appearing for the petitioner -detenu has invited my attention to the order of detention dated 27.9.2013 by which the detenu was arrested and sent to Bhuj Jail. The grounds of detaining the accused are that one offence was registered against the petitioner under the provisions of Sections 5, 6, 6(b)(1)(2)(3) and Sections 335, 336 and Section 119 of GPMC Act and Section 11(E)(L) of the Animal Cruelty Act. He is, therefore, a "cruel person" as defined under Section 2(bbb) of the PASA Act.

(3.) THE order of detention is passed on the basis of what has come to be known as the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority such subjective satisfaction has to be arrived at on two points. Firstly, on the veracity of facts imputed to the person to be detained and secondly, on the prognostication of the detaining authority that the person concerned is likely to indulge again in the same kind of notorious activities. Whereas, normal laws are primarily concerned with the act of commission of the offence, the detention laws are concerned with character of the person who has committed or is likely to commit an offence. The detaining authority has, therefore, to be satisfied that the person sought to be detained is of such a type that he will continue to violate the laws of the land if he is not preventively detained. So, the commission of isolated laws of infraction of law, not done in an organized or systematic manner, may not be sufficient for the detaining authority to justifiably come to the conclusion that there is no alternate but to preventively detain the person.