RAJENDRA BACHUBHAI RATHOD Vs. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Through this Special Civil Application under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India the petitioner has challenged the order of detention dated 12.4.1996 passed by the Commissioner of Police, Ahmedabad City under the provisions of Prevention of Antisocial Activities Act, 1985. The order of detention was executed on 13.4.1996 and since then the petitioner is under detention lodged in the Rajkot District Jail, Rajkot. This Special Civil Application was filed on 4.6.1996 and on 5.6.1996 Rule returnable on 24.6.1996 was issued and an affidavit-in-reply dated 25.9.1996 has been filed by the Detaining Authority.

(2.) The grounds of detention which were supplied to the detenu- petitioner along with the detention order show that the petitioner and his associates are engaged in sale of country made liquor in the area of Dani Limda Police Station in Ahmedabad City and he is carrying on antisocial activities. Two Criminal Cases No. 55/96 and 60/96 under the Prohibition Act were under investigation at the time when the detention order was passed and in Criminal Case No. 55/96, the allegation is with regard to 600 liters of country liquor worth Rs. 15,000/- and in Criminal Case No. 60/96, 32 liters of country liquor. The Detaining Authority has referred to the consequences of latthakand and has expressed that the account of the petitioner's antisocial activities and dealings in country liquor there was a possibility of Latthakand. The Detaining Authority has noted that the petitioner is a 220 known bootlegger and two witnesses had made statements with regard to the petitioner's antisocial activities. One of the witnesses has stated that on 19.3.1996 in the morning at about 8.30 a.m. when the witness was at his home the petitioner and his associate approached him with a stock of country liquor to store the same in the house of the witness and when the witness declined the petitioner got enraged and slapped him, threatened him and dragged him to the kacha road leading to Dargah and detained the witness. The witness cried for help, many people assembled there. The petitioner took out the weapons and threatened the people with his associates and therefore the members of the public became helter skelter and their daily life was disturbed and an atmosphere of terror was created. The other witness had made a statement that on 28.3.1996 in the after noon at about 3.30 p.m. the witness was going with his vehicle near Beharampura, Halludia Hanuman Char Rasta and at that time the petitioner with his associates standing there, stopped the witness and asked him to accompany him to bring the liquor from village Gyaspur. The witness did not agree to accompany the petitioner and therefore the petitioner got enraged, he threatened the witness and took him out of the vehicle and he was publicly beaten. The witness raised alarm as a result of which the people gathered but the petitioner with his associates chased them with naked weapons resulting the people into helter skelter and thus created an atmosphere of terror. The Detaining Authority has further recorded that two of the members of the public had supported the narration of above incident made by two witnesses and they knew the petitioner very well. It has also been noted that the petitioner is a headstrong person and has been beating innocent persons in public, was threatening the people with deadly weapons and due to fear no body was prepared to file an open complaint and they have requested to keep their identity secret for the reasons of security being frightened of him. The fear of the witness was found to be genuine after due investigation and therefore their identity has been with held under Sec. 9(2). It has also been recorded by the Detaining Authority that in the facts of this case the question of petitioner's externment was also considered but it was not found to be adequate step so as to prevent the petitioner from carrying on his antisocial activities and therefore the order of detention was necessary and accordingly the order of detention was passed.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner has challenged the detention order on the following grounds: [1] The Detaining Authority has not supplied any details of papers with regard to Latthakand. [2] The details of the associates had not been supplied despite demand. [3] Privilege claimed by the Detaining Authority under Sec. 9 (2) was not genuine, [4] Even if the entire material relied upon by the Detaining Authority is considered it is not a case of breach of public order and at the most it can be said to be a case of breach of law and order.