ANWARI BEGUM GULZARKHAN Vs. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition filed by the wife of the detenu asking that the detenu should be released. The detenu was arrested at 7 p.m. on March 9, 1948, and the detention order was served on him at 10 a.m. on March 11, 1948, together with a notice under Section 3 of the Bombay Public Security Measures Act, 1947, specifying the grounds and particulars of his detention.

(2.) It has been contended by counsel for the petitioner that the grounds are vague and outside the ambit of the Act, with the result that the detention order is bad in law. He has analysed the grounds into five specific grounds, viz. (1) that the detenu is a known mawali of Falkland Road locality, (2) that he is a trafficker in opium, (3) that there are a number of mawalis under him, (4) that he extorts money from prostitutes and (5) that he is also responsible for stabbing cases on Falkland Road. He has contended that grounds Nos. 1 and 3 that he is a known mawali and that there are a number of mawalis under him are vague inasmuch as the word "mawali" has no definite or certain connotation. He has also contended that being a trafficker in opium and extorting moneyfrom prostitutes, howsoever reprehensible these acts may be, are certainly not acts within the ambit of the Act which is intended only to detain persons who are acting in a manner prejudicial to the public safety, the maintenance of public order or tranquillity of the province or any part thereof. As regards the last ground, he has contended that there is nothing in the notice under Section 3 of the Act to show that he was acting in that manner at or about the time when the order for detention was made against the detenu. These are the grounds on which the detention order has been challenged.

(3.) As regards grounds 1 and 3, I may say that the word "mawali" has a well known connotation and is not vague. It connotes a person who is a bully and also a person who is a menace to the peace and tranquillity of the part of the city where he may happen to be the person in power. There is nothing vague about it and a person who fairly answers the description perfectly well knows what that term means. As regards grounds 2 and 4, if they stood by themselves, they may or may not necessarily lead to the conclusion that the activities of the detenu in that manner may be prejudicial to the public safety or the tranquillity of the city. When, however, they are taken in conjunction with the other grounds that have been mentioned, viz. grounds 1 and 3, they do not leave any doubt that the activities of the detenu in that behalf would certainly lead to a position which will be prejudicial to the public safety or the tranquillity or the peace of the part of the city wherein the detenu carries on his activities. As regards ground No. 5, there is nothing in the notice which would by any stretch of imagination be taken as referring to some acts of the detenu in the past. The only reasonable interpretation of this ground in the notice is that he is acting in that particular manner and is concerned with and is responsible for stabbing eases on Falkland Road. That has connection not with any remote past but has connection with what happened in the immediate past or recently before the order of detention was made against the detenu. Under all these circumstances I have come to the conclusion that the grounds of the detention order are not vague or bad in law and that they sufficiently comply with the requirements of the Act.