ASHOK AMBU PARMAR Vs. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE VADODARA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This matter comes up before us by reference made by the Division Bench consisting of D. H. Shukla and one of us A. P. Ravani JJ. According to the learned Judges who referred the matter the definition of dangerous person contained in sec. 2(c) of the Gujarat Prevention of Anti-Social Activities Act 1985 requires consideration by a larger Bench since the learned Judges who referred the matter thought that the pronouncements of Division Benches of our High Court regarding the definition of dangerous person occurring in the Act requires reconsideration. Though it is not necessary for us to go into the facts of the case which are the subject matter of Special Criminal Application No. 225 of 1986 for the completion of the record we may state a few facts.

(2.) The Commissioner of Police Vadodara City Vadodara passed a detention order on 28/10/1985 detaining the petitioner by name Ashok Ambu Parmar under the provisions of the Prevention of AntiSocial Activities Act 1985 The petitioner has challenged the legality and validity of the detention order on various ground. In this case the petitioner is detained on the ground that he is a 64dangerous person as defined under sec. 2(c) of the Act. It is the say of the petitioner that as per the definition of dangerous person occurring in sec. 2 of the Act a person either by himself or as a member or leader of a gang should have during a period of three successive years habitually committed or attempted to commit or abetted the commission of any of the offences punishable under Chapter XVI or Chapter XVII of the Indian Penal Code or any of the offences punishable under Chapter V of the Arms Act 1959 Interpreting this definition the petitioner submitted that there must have been commission of offences as contemplated in sec. 2(c) on every successive year prior to the passing of the detention order. It is submitted by the petitioner that if there is no offence committed in any one of these successive years a person cannot be termed as a dangerous person and as such the provisions of the Gujarat Prevention of Anti-Social Activities Act 1985 cannot be invoked. In support of his contention the petitioner cited the Division Bench judgments rendered in

(3.) Mr. Bharat C. Dave the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner read the above referred Bench decisions and contended that the interpretation given by the Benches referred above are correct and they have to be upheld. Mr. J. G. Shah intervening in this case supported the above said Bench decisions and contended that even though the period mentioned in sec. 2(c) has to be taken as one unit of time the reference to every three successive years makes it clear the offence ought to have been committed in every year. Reading the Ordinance which preceded the Act Mr. Shah contended that the sentence during a period of three successive years is not in the Ordinance and that these words have been inserted only in the Act in order to stress that a person to come under the mischief of sec. 2(c) should have committed offences every year mentioned in this section. Mr. Shah also read the word during occurring in this definition section and submitted that there ought to have been commission of offence during the period of every year mentioned in the section. We shall refer to the decisions cited ky Mr. Shah in the course of our discussion in this judgment