:
1.The petitioner-detenu in this case seeks to challenge the detention order dated 12-4-96 passed by the District Magistrate, Bharuch under the provisions of the Gujarat Prevention of Anti Social Activities Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The aforesaid detention order was executed on 15-4-96 and since then the petitioner is under detention.
2.The grounds of detention recorded by the District Magistrate, Bharuch with the detention order show that the petitioner is engaged in the offences under the Prohibition Act and three criminal cases were registered against him under the Bombay Prohibition Act being Criminal Case Nos.564/94 dated 3-12-94 under Sections 66B, 65A, 65E and 116(b), Case No.115/96 dated 20-3-96 under Sections 66(1)(b), 65-E, 116(b) and 81, and Case No.116/96 dated 21-3-96 under Sections 66(1)(b), 65E, 116(b) and 81 of the Prohibition Act. All these three criminal cases were registered at Police Station Rajpipla, District Bharuch and huge quantity of foreign liquor i.e.3137 bottles worth Rs.94,110/-, 1260 bottles of foreign liquor worth Rs.54,000/ and 2675 bottles of foreign liquor worth Rs.1,46,900/- were recovered from the petitioner in the aforesaid three cases respectively and the petitioner is facing trial in all these cases before the Court. Ofcourse he has been bailed out in all the three cases by the Court. Besides the mention of the petitioner's criminal record with reference to these three cases, the detaining authority has discussed the statements of 5 witnesses, which were made to the Police Inspector of the Police Station, Rajpipla on 21-10-95, 21-11-95, 7-12-95, 16-1-96 and 22-2-96 with regard to the incidents dated 16-10-95, 17-11-95, 1-12-95, 6-1-96 and 17-2-96 respectively. The first witness, who had deposed on 21-10-95, has stated that the petitioner is a head strong communal person, is not engaged in any lawful business and is engaged in the unlawful business of liquor, brings liquor from the boarder areas of Bodeli, Daman and Maharashtra. The huge quantity of liquor, which is so brought, is stored either in his house or in the huts and fields in the nearby area.
Dt:26-9-96 That in the Aadda run by the petitioner,there is assembly of drunkards and riotous scenes are being created including internal quarrel resulting into breach of peace. No member of the public dare tell anything to the petitioner and if anybody raises the grievance, he is beaten by the petitioner and he is made to be quite under pressure. The petitioner carries arms like Gupti, hockey, sword etc. and makes use of them freely. On 16-10-95 in the evening at about 7.0 P.M. the witness was waiting with his Jeep near Santosh Cinema and at that time the petitioner alongwith his two companions approached the witness and asked him for going to Bodeli and as to what will be the hire charges, for which the witness asked him as to for what purpose the Jeep was to be hired for going to Bodeli and the petitioner told that he should have nothing to do with the purpose. He should be concerned only with the amount of hire. The witness declined to go to Bodeli with the petitioner, the petitioner got enraged and removed him out of the Jeep from the steering and started beating him, the witness raised the alarm, the persons passing thereby gathered on the spot, but the petitioner alongwith his persons ran after them with weapons, which resulted the public in helter-skelter and thus the public life was disturbed, the atmosphere of breach of peace was created in the village, shop keepers had to close their shops and yet the witness could not report the matter because of being frightened of him. The witness No.2 deposed on 21-11-95 before the Police Inspector, Rajpipla about the unlawful activities and business of the petitioner in the same terms as was stated by the witness no.1 and has further stated that near the place of the business of the petitioner there are temples of Hanumanji, Bhathuji and God Shankar and that the drunkards, who assemble at this place, are seen enjoying in activities of eve-teasing and misbehaviour with the ladies, sisters and daughters, who come to visit the temples and the Cinema resulting into ugly scenes and breach of peace. On 17-11-95 at about 6.0 P.M. this witness was in his field at Kelvala. The petitioner alongwith four persons took 4 cartons of foreign liquor and told him that his other places of business had become known and, therefore, these cartons be kept in the field of the witness and when the witness declined the petitioner got enraged and gave 2 to 3 slaps, the witness raised an alarm, but no one could dare to come to his rescue and this witness also did not report because of being frightened of the petitioner. Similar depositions were made by witness No.3 on 7-12-95 and it was further stated that on 1-12-95 at about 9.0 P.M. the witness and his friend were going to the Cinema house and at that time the petitioner was selling foreign liquor on the open road outside the Cinema house. At that time the petitioner approached the witness and told him that he had come to gather and report information against the petitioner and petitioner alongwith his friends started beating the witness and the witness alongwith his friend had to run away, but the petitioner chased the witness with Gupti in his hands. The public became helter-skelter. The lariwalas also ran away with their laris and thus the atmosphere of breach of peace was created, but the witness could not report being frightened of the petitioner. The witness No.4, who made the statement on 16-1-96 before the Police Inspector, Rajpipla while making similar statements regarding the bootlegging activities of the petitioner stated that on 6-1-96 at about 7.0 P.M. the petitioner alongwith his two friends went to the house of the witness and told him that his place of business to store the liquor had become known, it was the time for the police raid and, therefore, 5 cartons of the foreign liquor may be kept in the house of the witness, but the witness declined and, therefore, the petitioner was enraged and told him that whether the witness wanted to live in this area or not, whether he wanted to be alive or not, the witness was dragged out of his house and was beaten, but being frightened of the petitioner, no one came to his rescue and the people remained in their houses and the witness did not report against the petitioner out of the petitioner's fear. The witness No.5, who made statements on 22-2-96 before the Police Inspector, Rajpipla, made certain allegations about the bootlegging activities of the petitioner and stated that on 17-2-96 at about 10.0 A.M. the witness was standing near the place Kalagoda and at that time the petitioner alongwith his 4 friends came in an Ambassador Car, hurled abuses against the witness telling him that he was a man of Police and used to pass on informations against the petitioner to the Police resulting into the raid at his places and started beating the witness, the witness ran away to save his life, the petitioner chased him with a hockey and there was a helter-skelter of the people, the shop keepers closed their shops and thus the public life was disturbed and the witness did not report against the petitioner because of fear. On the consideration of the aforesaid material, the detaining authority felt satisfied that the petitioner was engaged in unlawful and anti-social activities, which had become a headache to the public order, disturbing the public life every now and then and the proceedings of externment under the Bombay Police Act could not be conducive in the facts and circumstances of this case and while recording that the witnesses were rightly frightened of the petitioner and, therefore, their identity could not be disclosed, privilege was claimed under S.9(2) of the Act and the District Magistrate, Bharuch i.e. detaining authority found it to be a fit case to detain the petitioner and accordingly the detention order was passed on 12-4-96.
3.Against this detention order dated 12-4-96 the present Special Civil Application was filed in this Court on 27-6-96 and on 28-6-96 rule returnable for the date of 31-7-96 was issued. No reply to the petition has been filed on behalf of the respondents and the learned Addl. P.P. Mr. Nigam Shukla has chosen to make oral submissions to contest the petition.
4.The learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. Mehta has pressed the following contentions to assail the impugned detention order and I may deal with each of the contentions as under:
(1)Pages 32, 44 and 46 of the compilation of the documents supplied to the petitioner by the detaining authority are not legible and in this regard he has placed reliance on 1991(2) GLR 753 (P.S.Chandel v. Dist. Magistrate).
I have perused pages 32, 44 and 46 of the compilation of the documents. Page 32 is the back page of a bail order dated 26-12-94 and the document shows that it is clearly legible and there is no question of taking this page as illegible. Page 44 is the back side of the bail order dated 22-3--96 and it only bears the court Seals, which are ofcourse not very clearly legible, but they can not be said to be wholly illegible as the same can be read with little strain and in any case it can not be said that the petitioner has been put to any prejudice on this count, as the contents of the Court Seals etc., while giving the certified copy of the order, can not be said to be vital to the petitioner's right of representation against the detention order. Page 46 is the back side of a surety bond and in my opinion, this document also can not be said to be illegible. In the decision in P.S. Chandel's case (Supra) the copy of the receipt was found to be illegible and the said document was conceded to be illegible and the Court found that it was a relevant document and the right to make the representation had been infringed. In my opinion, in the facts of this case, on the basis of the Court seals on the back side of a bail order i.e. page 44, it can not be said that any prejudice has been caused to the petitioner's right of making an effective representation on account of the same being illegible. This contention raised on behalf of the petitioner, therefore, fails and the same is hereby rejected.
(2)That the letter of proposal, which was made for petitioner's detention, was not supplied to him alongwith the detention order.
There is no such requirement of law that the letter of proposal made by the Sponsoring Authority had to be supplied to the petitioner in view of the law laid down by the apex court in the case of State of U.P. v. Shakeel Ahmed, reported in (1996) 1 SCC 337. Therefore, this contention is straightaway rejected.
(3)That the detaining authority had mechanically exercised the power without actually examining the verification of the apprehension of the witnesses.
The copies of the statements, which had been supplied to the petitioner alongwith the detention order, do show that these statements had been verified on 31-3-96 by the Vibhagiya Police Adhikari, Rajpipla and, therefore, there is no basis to say that the statements of the witnesses, who deposed before the Police Inspector, Rajpipla, had not been verified. The contents of the statements include the apprehension, which was raised by the witnesses and the verification is a verification of the statements as a whole and, therefore, it cannot be said that it was a case of mechanical exercise. The learned counsel for the petitioner has made reference to 1996(1) GLR 80 (J.R. Nagori v. Dist. Magistrate, Mehsana). Ofcourse in this case also the Dy. S.P. had written only one word 'verified", but the court while referring to the earlier Division Bench decision in the case of Koli Ashwin v. State of Gujarat in Special Criminal Application No.1812/93 dated 12-9-94 has quoted the observations of the Division Bench to the effect that for exercising the power under S.9(2) what is required for a detaining authority is that he must come to a subjective satisfaction himself and for that purpose, he must be able to point out either in the grounds or in the contemporaneous record that he had sufficient material before him to come to that subjective satisfaction. Keeping in view this requirement about the subjective satisfaction of the authority, if the detention order is looked at, it can be said that in the facts and circumstances of this case, the detaining authority has not satisfied itself only on the basis of the one word 'verified' as recorded by the Vibhagiya Police Adhikari, but the detaining authority had himself considered the statements and the criminal record of the present petitioner in detail and after the application of his own mind by discussing the entire material in detail, case wise as well as witness wise, has ultimately recorded his satisfaction that in case the names of the witnesses and their addresses are supplied to the petitioner, it may be injurious to their person and property and it is on the basis of this recorded satisfaction that the detaining authority has claimed privilege under S.9(2) of the Act and, therefore, I do not find any substance in this contention raised by the petitioner and the same is hereby rejected.
(4)That there was a delay in passing the detention order inasmuch as the last statement recorded against the petitioner was on 22-2-96, but the detention order was passed on 12-4-96 and in support of this contention, the learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on 1992(2) GLR 1183 (Makdum Abdul Mahd. v. State ).
In para 18 of the petition, the petitioner himself has stated that the last offence against him was registered on 21-3-96 and the last witness made a statement on 22-2-96 and that the statements were verified by the Divisional Police Officer, Rajpipla on 31-3-96. Thus at the most it can be said that in the facts and circumstances of this case, there is a delay of 12 days in passing the detention order. In the case of Makdum Abdul Mahd.(Supra), the last case was registered on 21-9-90 and the order of detention came to be passed on 7-8-91 and the Division Bench considering the entire time chart with regard to the registration of the cases against the petitioner in that case found as a question of fact that there was a delay of more than 10 months and such a long delay remained unexplained and was found to be inordinate. Such are not the facts in the present case and merely because there was a delay of 12 days in passing the detention order after the verification, there is no basis to set aside the detention order on this ground alone.
5.That the material, which has been considered by the detaining authority against the petitioner, does not make out a case of breach of public order and it can at the most be said to be a case of breach of law and order and in support of this submission, the learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on AIR 1989 SC 491 ( Piyush v. Police Commissioner, Ahmedabad).
I have considered this contention raised on behalf of the petitioner in the light of the principles which have been laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Piyush v. Police Commisioner, Ahmedabad (Supra). So far as the allegations regarding the petitioner being engaged in the activities of bootlegging including the criminal cases, which have been registered against him with regard to the recovery of huge quantity of foreign liquor apart, and the other allegations which are there against the petitioner with regard to the violence and physical assault also keeping apart, I find that the material considered in the present case is beyond the allegations of breach of law and order. Witnesses have deposed certain things which indicate the activities leading to breach of the maintenance of the public order in the facts and circumstances of the present case. Now herein is a case in which, as has been narrated above, one of the witnesses has deposed that the petitioner is a head strong communal person. ofcourse no particular incident about his being communal has been narrated, the witness has deposed that the petitioner is a communal person. It is the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority and what value is to be attached to such a deposition in absence of any particular incident deposed by a particular witness may be a subject matter of consideration by the detaining authority and in a given case the detaining authority may come to the conclusion on the basis of the other activities coupled with the allegation of communal outlook that the conduct of a person may lead to the breach of the public order. Besides this, the peculiar feature of this case is that as many as three witnesses have deposed that the petitioner was running a 'Aadda' of the foreign liquor near the Cinema House where three temples of Hanumanji, Bhathuji and Lord Shankar are situated and it had become a viable place for the drunkards to be engaged in the activities of eve-teasing and the ladies moving in this area coming to the temples and to visit Cinema house were not safe and that these activities led to riotous scenes and the breach of the peace on more than one occasions. The learned counsel for the petitioner argued that there is no allegation of eve-teasing against him in person. This argument, in my opinion, does not lend any strength to the petitioner's case so as to assail the detention order. Had it been any isolated case even repeated at the hands of the petitioner, an argument could be raised that it was a simple case of breach of law and order. Here is a case in which the activities of the petitioner i.e. running foreign liquor 'Aadda' near temples and Cinema house have given rise to the threat and has in fact precipitated the breach of the public order, has created fear amongst the public, the ladies can not move and visit this area without fear, it could be taken to be a case of the breach of public order. According to the values which are cherished in the culture of our country it is said that even wind in this country is not supposed to disorder the apparels of the ladies. In the backdrop of such values, if we examine the activities of running a foreign liquor unauthorised 'Aadda' at nearby places like Cinema house and temples where ladies do not feel safe to visit and their visits has resulted in their humiliation, the public order has been disturbed more than once, the shop keepers had to close their shops in the area, the residents and the shop keepers in this area had suffered the fear psychosis at the hands of the petitioner and his party on more than one occasions and when the witnesses have deposed that the petitioner has been pressurising and putting the residents under pressure to store cartons of the foreign liquor in huge quantity in their houses or fields because his other places of business had become known to the Police, the members of the public are sought to be made a party to the anti social activities run by the petitioner and taking an over all view of all these facts, if the detaining authority felt and recorded his subjective satisfaction that the petitioner's detention was warranted, it is not for this Court to substitute its own satisfaction in place of the satisfaction recorded by the detaining authority. The material which has been considered by the detaining authority in the facts of this case cannot be compared with the allegations which were there before the Apex Court in the Case of Piyush (Supra) and I do find that here is a case in which the material against the petitioner had travelled beyond the allegations of being engaged in bootlegging activities or some isolated or astray incidents of assault and violence. I do not find any substance in the argument raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner that it was not a case in which there was no breach of the public order. The material has been duly considered by the detaining authority and the order has been passed after due and active application of mind on the basis of the material, which was available before it, and I do not find any basis to interfere with the impugned detention order on the ground that it was not a case of breach of the public order and it was simply a case of breach of law and order.
5.All the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner, therefore, fail. I do not find any merit in this petition and the same is hereby dismissed. Rule is discharged.