ROSHANBIBI Vs. POLICE COMMR SURAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner who is detained under the provisions of Gujarat Prevention of Anti-Social Activities Act, 1985 (the PASAA for short) by an order dated 20-4-1988 passed by the Commissioner of Police, Surat City has brought in challenge the said order on diverse grounds. The petitioner was taken in custody on the same day and was furnished the grounds of detention of even date. At the time of final hearing of this petition, Mr. Kapadia for the petitioner raised the following contentions :-

(2.) (Contention No. 1) : So far as this contention is concerned, our attention was invited by Mr. Kapadia to the ground of detention at page 13. In para 1 of the grounds, it is stated that the petitioner was involved in 31 offences under the Bombay Prohibition Act. Out of these cases. 20 cases were pending trial and 11 cases were pending investigation. We were then taken to para 3 of the grounds which states that the petitioner was arrested for the offence under the Bombay Prohibition Act on 14-2-1986 and after being released on bail, she had again involved herself in other offences and by 11-2-1988. she was arrested in 31 prohibition cases under the Bombay Prohibition Act. We were then taken to para 4 of the grounds which stated that having carefully considered the aforesaid evidence and in the light of what is stated in para 1 of the grounds the detaining authority was satisfied that the petitioner was running liquor den keeping in her possession country liquor and that she had been involved in offences under the Bombay Prohibition Act and she was a known bootlegger. Then follow certain recitals which showed that it was not possible to take steps under Section 437 of the Cr. P.C. for getting her bail cancelled and there was no use resorting to steps under Section 93 of the Bombay Prohibition Act or under Sections 107 and 110 of the Code of Cr. Procedure nor any purpose would be served by resorting to steps under the Bombay Police. Act for externing the petitioner from the concerned area. Then follows sub-para of para 4 which states that her activities have spread to large extent and she was always involved in such activities. Thereafter occur the following sentences which when translated in English read as under :-

(3.) Mr. Kapadia also invited our attention to the observations of the Supreme Court in the case of Icchu Devi v. Union of India. AIR 1980 SC 1983. In head-note (b) dealing with Art.22(5) of the Constitution read with Section 3(3) of COFEPOSA Act, it is stated -