KALUJI GOVINDJI THAKORE Vs. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE AHMEDABAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has been detained pursuant to order of detention dated 9/02/1989 passed by the detaining authority (Commissioner of Police Ahmedabad City) under the provisions of Sec. 3(2) of the Gujarat Prevention of Anti-Social Activities Act 1985 (for short PASA).

(2.) It is alleged in the grounds of detention supplied to the petitioner-detenu that in Keshavnagar-Sabarmati area of Ahmedabad city the petitioner was storing country liquor and selling the same amongst the members of the public and was thereby indulging in bootlegging activity as defined under the provisions of PASA. The details of cases registered against the petitioner-detenu have been mentioned in the grounds of detention It is also alleged in the grounds of detention that the petitioner was a dangerous person inasmuch as he habitually indulged in offences mentioned in Chapters 16 and 17 of Indian Penal code and his activity as such bootlegger and dangerous person was prejudicial to the maintenance of public order and hence he was required to be detained. In the grounds of detention details as regards the criminal cases filed against him and certain incidents which took place with individual witnesses have also been mentioned On the basis of the material placed before him the detaining authority was satisfied that it was necessary to pass the order of preventive detention against the petitioner so as to prevent him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. Hence the order of detention.

(3.) The petitioner has challenged the legality and validity of the order of detention be filing this petition he details of prohibition eases registered against the petitioner under the provisions of Bombay Prohibition Act 1949 show that in all ten cases have been registered against him. Out of these ten cases eight cases are for consumption of prohibited liquor. Only two cases are pertaining to possession and sale of liquor. As far as the consumption of prohibited liquor is concerned the activity does not fall within the scope of bootlegging expression as defined under the provisions of PASA. The term bootlegger occurring in sec. 2(h) of PASA takes within its sweep storing manufacturing importing exporting selling or distributing any liquor intoxicating drug or other intoxicant in contravention of ally provision of the Bombay Prohibition Act 1949 It does not take within its sweep consumption of any of these substances. Therefore eight cases registered against the petitioner under the provisions of Sec. 85(1)(3) of the Bombay Prohibition Act 1949 on the allegation that the petitioner was found drunk in public place could not have been relied upon by the detaining authority. As far as one of the cases for possession of prohibited liquor is concerned (case registered at C. R. No. 749 of 1986 of Sabarmati Police Station) the same has not been proved against the petitioner. It is an admitted position that a copy of the judgment and order passed by the Criminal Court in this case has not been supplied to the petitioner. Therefore this case also cannot be taken into consideration. Thus there is only one case which may be said to be pertaining to bootlegging activity of the petitioner-detenu. This case is mentioned at Sr. No. 7 in the grounds of detention and it is registered at C. R. No. 854 of 1987 of Sabarmati Police Station. The case is still pending in the Court. In the facts of this case on the basis of this one case alone it cannot be said that the petitioner is indulging in bootlegging activity. Hence the satisfaction arrived at by the detaining authority as regards the petitioner being a bootlegger stands vitiated on the ground that irrelevant cases have been taken into consideration.