KOLI VASHRAM PUNJA Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE four petitions by four different detenus are filed by them under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the quashing of the orders of their detention made by the District Magistrate, Amreli on 22.7.84 for the alleged purpose of preventing them "from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order". The said orders had come to be issued under sub -section (2) of section 3 Of the National Security Act, 1980. The grounds of detention were furnished to these detenus individually and they are to be found at Annexure B in each of these petition. Some grounds are common to all the four detenus and some are individual ones. However, two grounds are common to all the four detenus. The first one of these two is that on 17.6.81 at about midnight, these detenus formed an unlawful assembly, armed with deadly weapons and bad assaulted one Koli Naranbhai, the son of Lakhman Menshibhai, and one Rambbai Bhagwanbhai. Though it was midnight time, it being a festival of "URSH" for muslims, many people happened to frequent that locality near the Fish Market of Kodinar town. The assault was effected on such a large scale and with such deadly weapons that it caused panic in the area round -about and in order to desist people from coming to the rescue of these two victims, sodawater bottles were freely hurled in the round about area. All this gave rise to an atmosphere of fear and terror. In this connection, an offence was registered with Kodinar Police Station and these detenus were charge -sheeted for the offences under sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 327, 337, etc. of the I.P.C. and three of these detenus were sentenced to undergo R.I. for nine months and the detenus of the petition No. 709 of 1984 was sentenced to undergo R.I. for two years. The appeals preferred against the conviction and sentence were, however, withdrawn before .this High Court. The copies of the two judgments, one of the Sessions Court and another of the High Court regarding withdrawal, were furnished to the detenus. It is no longer in controversy before us that the judgment of the Sessions Court, which formed one of the basic documents enabling the District Magistrate to reach the requisite satisfaction was in English. Copy of the judgment was given to these detenus m that language, which he did not understand, he claiming to be totally illiterate.

(2.) IT was also alleged against all these detenus that on 18.6.1981 at about 6.15 A.M., they, with other associates of theirs, assaulted one Thakarshi and one Sadlk Husen near Piparsheri of Kodinar Town. They assaulted Thakarshi and dragged him into the nearby street where he was killed with the help of deadly weapons. Another victim Sadik Husen also was injured in the Course of his intervention. In this connection, a complaint was registered against these persons by the Kodinar Police for offences under sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 324, etc. of the I.P.C. The Sessions Judge convicted them of the offence under section 302 and sentenced each of them to undergo imprisonment for life. They, however, came to be acquitted by the High Court on 24.7.1984 because the deposition of one eye -witness was found as not inspiring confidence by this High Court. It was alleged that in that town inhabited mostly by agriculturists and agricultural labourers, people at that point of time were there and this brutal attack created atmosphere of panic. Copies of the judgments admitted recorded in English were given to the detenu, but no translations thereof in Gujarati were furnished. The detenus obviously did not know English at all, they being totally illiterate.

(3.) THE result is that all these four petitions are allowed by quashing the orders of detention at Annexure A in each of these petitions, being orders passed by the District Magistrate, Amreli on 22.7.1984 with the result that the detenus are required to be released from detention forthwith. A writ in this regard shall issue at once. Rule is accordingly made absolute in all the four petitions with no order as to costs. Petition allowed. 1. A.I.R. 1981 S.C. 728.