JASPALSINGH JAGATSINGH VIG Vs. J.F. REBEIRO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) [After giving facts in paras 1 to 3 of the petition the Judgment proceeds]:

(2.) THE first ground is even ex facie pertaining to the purported illegal activities restricted to liquor business. Thus it is alleged that the detenu has been indulging in transport of illicit liquor on large scale and be has threatened a person whom be suspected to be an informant about his bootlegging activities. The second ground is more or less on the same lines. Now it is apparent that when these two grounds are read properly those reflect a dominant part pertaining to the activities relating to illicit liquor and there is no escape from this inference. In both the grounds there is a reference to the threats given by the detenu to two persons and in fact one of them was also assaulted by the detenu and his associates. However, it is amply clarified through this ground as also through the statements of those persons whose names have not been obviously disclosed that they were made targets of the anger of the detenu only because they were suspected to have informed the police about the bootlegging activities like transport of liquor by the detenu. Consequently those acts have a direct nexus with the activities of the detenu as bootlegger and the anger against those informants flows only out of these activities so that the bootlegging transactions could continue smoothly. In fact both the witnesses have stated that the detenu is known as the prime person in illicit liquor business. A stray reference that one of the witnesses was asked to canvass in Assembly Elections for a particular candidate has really nothing to do with the order of detention. These two items, therefore, squarely fall under the mischief of relevant provisions of the Act as being predominantly concerned with the bootlegging activities, in the context of the alleged apprehension of adversely affecting the maintenance of public order. In so far as these two grounds are concerned the situation is not seriously disputed on behalf of the respondent.

(3.) HOWEVER , the main controversy revolves around ground No. 3. According to Shri Bardey, the learned Public Prosecutor, this ground carves out an independent case which can squarely fall under the mischief of National Security Act and it is exclusively on that basis that an argument is canvassed that detention under the National Security Act is well justified. It is alleged in that ground that on 21st April 1985 the Sub -Inspector attached to Antop Hill Police Station on the basis of the credible information went at the said spot in Sardar Nagar locality and be noticed a motor car stationary on the road in open place and that the detenu was standing near the car. On sighting the arrival of the police, the driver of the car immediately started the vehicle and bolted away. The police obviously wanted to chase the said car and in order to prevent the said chase the detenu is alleged to have gone in front of the police jeep and actually laid supine on the road claiming that if the police wanted to chase, they will have to first crush him under the jeep. be made a scene though be had to be controlled and it is thereafter that the police jeep started further, though by that time the car in question sped away. It is on that count that the offence under section 353 read with 341 of the Indian Penal Code was registered against the detenu.