ASIF MIRKHAN HUSSAINMIYA MALEK Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner-detenu has preferred this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for appropriate writ, order or direction for quashing and setting aside the order dated 27. 4. . 2007 passed by the Commissioner of Police, Ahmedabad City under the provisions of Gujarat Prevention of Anti Social Activities Act, 1985 (for short, 'pasa Act') whereby the petitioner has been detained as a dangerous person. Heard the learned advocate for the petitioner and the learned AGP for the respondents.

(2.) FROM the grounds of detention, it appears that there are three offences being CR. I-Nos. 2, 146 and 96 of 2007 under section 392, 393 etc. of the Indian Penal Code were registered against the detenu for indulging in committing theft of gold/ornaments. The detaining authority has placed reliance on the aforesaid registered offences and statements of unnamed witnesses. After recording the subjective satisfaction about the petitioner being a dangerous person and with a view to preventing him from acting in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order, the impugned order was passed by the detaining authority.

(3.) EXCEPT two statements of the unnamed witness, there is no other material on record which shows that the petitioner is acting in such a manner which is dangerous to the public order. There are number of decisions of this court as well as the Hon'ble Apex Court on the point of relying on the statements of unnamed witnesses in detention cases. In the case of Ashokbhai Jivraj @ Jivabhai Solanki v. Police Commissioner, Surat (2001 (1) GLH 393), having considered the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Ram Manohar Lohia v. State of Bihar (AIR 1966 SC 740), this court held that the cases wherein the detention order passed on the basis of the statements of the witnesses falls under the maintenance of Slaw and order and not Spublic order.