CHAMPAKBHAI MADHUBHAI VASAVA Vs. DISTRICT MAGISTRATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner-detenu in this case seeks to challenge the detention order dated 12-4-96 passed by the District Magistrate, Bharuch under the provisions of the Gujarat Prevention of Anti Social Activities Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The aforesaid detention order was executed on 15-4-96 and since then the petitioner is under detention.

(2.) The grounds of detention recorded by the District Magistrate, Bharuch with the detention order show that the petitioner is engaged in the offences under the Prohibition Act and three criminal cases were registered against him under the Bombay Prohibition Act being Criminal Case Nos. 564/94 dated 3-12-94 under Secs. 66B, 65A, 65E and 116 (b), Case No. 115/96 dated 20-3-96 under Secs. 66 (1) (b), 65-E, 116 (b) and 81, and Case No. 116/96 dated 21-3-96 under Secs. 66 (l)(b), 65 E, 116 (b) and 81 of the Prohibition Act. All these three criminal cases were registered at Police Station Rajpipla, District Bharuch and huge quantity of foreign liquor i.e. 3137 bottles worth Rs. 94, 110/-, 1260 bottles of foreign liquor worth Rs. 54,000/- and 2675 bottles of foreign liquor worth Rs. 1,46,900/- were recovered from the petitioner in the aforesaid three cases respectively and the petitioner is facing trial in all these cases before the Court. Of course he has been bailed out in all the three cases by the Court. Besides the mention of the petitioner's criminal record with reference to these three cases, the detaining authority has discussed the statements of 5 witnesses, which were made to the Police Inspector of the Police Station, Rajpipla on 21-10-95, 21-11-95, 7-12-95, 16-1-96 and 22-2-96 with regard to the incidents dated 16-10-95, 17-11-95, 1-12-95, 6-1-96 and 17-2- 96 respectively. The first witness, who had deposed on 21-10-95, has stated that the petitioner is a head strong communal person, is not engaged in any lawful business and is engaged in the unlawful business of liquor, brings liquor from the boarder areas of Bodeli, Daman and Maharashtra. The huge quantity of liquor, which is so brought, is stored either in his house or in the huts and fields in the nearby area. Dated: 26-9-96 That in the Aadda run by the petitioner, there is assembly of drunkards and riotous scenes are being created including internal quarrel resulting into breach of peace. No member of the public dare tell anything to the petitioner and if anybody raises the grievance, he is beaten by the petitioner and he is made to be quite under pressure. The petitioner carries arms like Gupti, hockey, sword etc. and makes use of them freely. On 16-10-95 in the evening at about 7.00 P.M. the witness was waiting with his Jeep near Santosh Cinema and at that time the petitioner alongwith his two companions approached the witness and asked him for going to Bodeli and as to what will be the hire charges, for which the witness asked him as to for what purpose the Jeep was to be hired for going to Bodeli and the petitioner told that he should have nothing to do with the purpose. He should be concerned only with the amount of hire. The witness declined to go to Bodeli with the petitioner, the petitioner got enraged and removed him out of the Jeep from the steering and started beating him, the witness raised the alarm, the persons passing thereby gathered on the spot, but the petitioner alongwith his persons ran after them with weapons, which resulted the public in helter-skelter and thus the public life was disturbed, the atmosphere of breach of peace was created in the village, shop keepers had to close their shops and yet the witness could not report the matter because of being frightened of him. The witness No. 2 deposed on 21-11-95 before the Police Inspector, Rajpipla about the unlawful activities and business of the petitioner in the same terms as was stated by the witness No. 1 and has further stated that near the place of the business of the petitioner there are temples of Hanumanji, Bhathuji and God Shankar and that the drunkards, who assemble at this place, are seen enjoying in activities of eve-teasing and misbehaviour with the ladies, sisters and daughters, who come to visit the temples and the Cinema resulting into ugly scenes and breach of peace. On 17-11-95 at about 6.0 P.M. this witness was in his filed at Kelvala. The petitioner alongwith four persons took 4 cartons of foreign liquor and told him that his other places of business had become known and, therefore, these cartons be kept in the field of the witness and when the witness declined the petitioner got enraged and gave 2 to 3 slaps, the witness raised an alarm, but no one could dare to come to his rescue and this witness also did not report because of being frightened of the petitioner. Similar depositions were made by witness No. 3 on 7-12-95 and it was further stated that on 1-12-95 at about 9.0 P.M. the witness and his friend were going to the Cinema house and at that time the petitioner was selling foreign liquor on the open road outside the Cinema house. At that time the petitioner approached the witness and told him that he had come to gather and report information against the petitioner and petitioner alongwith his friends started beating the witness and the witness alongwith his friend had to run away, but the petitioner chased the witness with Gupti in his hands. The public became helter-skelter. The lariwalas also ran away with their laris and thus the atmosphere of breach of peace was created, but the witness could not report being frightened of the petitioner. The witness No. 4, who made the statement on 16-1-96 before the Police Inspector, Rajpipla while making similar statements regarding the bootlegging activities of the petitioner stated that on 6-1-96 at about 7.00 P.M. the peptitioner alongwith his two friends went to the house of the witness and told him that his place of business to store the liquor had become known, it was the time for the police raid and, therefore, 5 cartons of the foreign liquor may be kept in the house of the witness, but the witness declined and, therefore, the petitioner was enraged and told him that whether the witness wanted to live in this area or not, whether he wanted to be alive or not, the witness was dragged out of his house and was beaten, but being frightened of the petitioner, no one came to his rescue and the people remained in their houses and the witness did not report against the petitioner out of the petitioner's fear. The witness No. 5, who made statements on 22-2-96 before the Police Inspector, Rajpipla, made certain allegations about the bootlegging activities of the petitioner and stated that on 17-2-96 at about 10.0 A.M. the witness was standing near the place Kalagoda and at that time the petitioner alongwith his 4 friends came in an Ambassador Car, hurled abuses against the witness telling him that he was a man of Police and used to pass on informations against the petitioner to the Police resulting into the raid at his places and started beating the witness, the witness ran away to save his life, the petitioner chased him with a hockey and there was a helter-skelter of the people, the shop keepers closed their shops and thus the public life was disturbed and the witness did not report against the petitioner because of fear. On the consideration of the aforesaid material, the detaining authority felt satisfied that the petitioner was engaged in unlawful and anti-social activities, which had become a headache to the public order, disturbing the public life every now and then and the proceedings of externment under the Bombay Police Act could not be conducive in the facts and circumstances of this case and while recording that the witnesses were rightly frightened of the petitioner and, therefore, their identity could not be disclosed, privilege was claimed under Sec. 9 (2) of the Act and the District Magistrate, Bharuch i.e. detaining authority found it to be a fit case to detain the petitioner and accordingly the detention order was passed on 12-4-96.

(3.) Against this detention order dated 12-4-96 the present Special Civil Application was filed in this Court on 27-6-96 and on 28-6-96 rule returnable for the date of 31-7-96 was issued. No reply to the petitioner has been filed on behalf of the respondents and the learned Addl. P.P. Mr. Nigam Shukla has chosen to make oral submissions to contest the petition.