KALIDAS DEVJI MALI Vs. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE VADODARA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner-detenu has filed the present petition against the detention order passed against him by the Commissioner of Police Vadodara City dated 28-3-1988 in exercise of the powers conferred on him under subSection (1) of Section 3 of the Gujarat Prevention of Anti-Social Activities Act 1985 on his being satisfied with respect to the present petitioner that with a view in preventing the petitioner from acting in any manger prejudicial to the maintenance of public order in the area of Vadodara city it was necessary to make an order directing him to be detained. The petitioner was served with the grounds of detention on the same day i.e. 28-348.

(2.) On perusal of the grounds it appears that the petitioner was earlier detained by the order dated 20-9-1985 under the same Act. However as the period of detention for one year was over the Government has released him on 21-9-1986. Even thereafter the petitioner has continued his bootlegging activity and there are as many as five cases filed against him. The first case was filed against him on 6th December 1986 wherein 200 litres of wash along with distillery implements were seized from the custody of the petitioner and offence under Sections 65-f and 81 of the Bombay Prohibition Act was registered. The petitioner was arrested in the said case on 10-12-86 and case is still pending. The second case filed against the petitioner was in respect of seizing of 350 litres of country liquor from the petitioners residence on 20-9-1987 and criminal case under the provisions 618 656 and 81 of the Bombay Prohibition Act has been filed against him. The third case filed against the petitioner is on account of seizing of 45 litres of country liquor from his residence on 15-12-87. The fourth case filed against the petitioner is on account of seizing 90 litres of country liquor from his house on 19-1-1988. The fifth case was filed against him on 21-1-1988 as 26 litres of country liquor was seized from his residence and criminal case for the offences under Sections 66(1) (b) and 65-E of the Prohibition Act has been filed against him. All the aforesaid cases are either pending investigation or pending trial in the Court as stated in the grounds of detention.

(3.) It also appears from the grounds of detention that four witnesses have given statements against the petitioner in respect of his activities as a bootlegger. However it is clearly mentioned in the grounds that names and addresses were not supplied to the petitioner as the said witnesses had apprehension of danger with regard to persons and properties if their names are disclosed. In that view of the matter the detaining authority also inquired about the truth of the said statements through an officer of the cadre of S.P. and that the said statements were found to be correct. The detaining authority therefore has taken into consideration the anti-social activities of the petitioner and has come to the conclusion that not supplying the names and addresses is in the public interest.