MOHANLAL KISHANCHAND SINDHI Vs. DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, BANASKANTHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is detained by an order dated 19 -2 -1987, whereby he is detained under Sub -S. (2) of S. 3 of the Gujarat Prevention of Anti -Social Activitieas Act, 1985. The said order of detention has been challenged on several grounds. One of the grounds is that though the petitioner was acquitted in some of the cases, when the order of detention was passed, the detaining authority had shown those cases as pending and thereby the detention is vitiated. The petitioner has made specific averments in this regard and the affidavit - in -reply filed by the detaining authority is very vague. The detaining authority has stated in the affidavit -in -reply that the necessary information was gathered and position was ascertained before passing the order of detention. It is pertinent to note that the detaining authority does not say in the affidavit -in -reply that the say of the petitioner that he was acquitted in some of those cases was not factually correct. Over and above this, the learned advocate who appears for the petitioner has produced before this Court certified copies of the judgments delivered by the Criminal Court in respect of some cases acquitting the petitioner. The petitioner was involved in prohibition cases and the offence was alleged to have been committed on 1 -5 -1983. The said incident is mentioned at serial No.1 in the grounds of detention and it is mentioned therein that the said case was pending when the order of detention was passed. The judgment of the Criminal Court shows that on 27 -5 -1986 the petitioner was acquitted in Summay Case No.173 of 1985 arising out of that case mentioned at serial No.1.

(2.) The Judgment of the Criminal Court in summary Case No.1835 of 1984 also shows that the offence was alleged to have been committed on 20 -12 -1983 and the petitioner was acquitted on 22 -5 -1986. On comparing the judgment with the details given in the grounds of detention, it is clear that it pertains to the same incident. The third incident pertains to an offence committed on 22 -1 -1984 and Summary Case No.968 of 1985 was disposed of by the learned Magistrate on 27 -2 -1986 and the petitioner was acquitted.

(3.) The above instances clearly show that even though the petitioner was acquitted in those cases, when the order of detention was passed, the detaining authority was not aware of that fact and wrongly mentioned in the order of detention that the cases were still pending. In view of this, the order of detention is vitiated and therefore, it is required to be quashed. (RMC)Rule made absolute.