AYUB ALIAS PAPPUKHAN NAWABKHAN PATHAN Vs. S N SINHA
LAWS(SC)-1990-8-79
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Decided on August 21,1990

Ayub @ Pappukhan Nawabkhan Pathan Appellant
VERSUS
Shri S. N. Sinha And Another Respondents





Cited Judgements :-

HAFIJUDDIN FAZLUDDIN KAZI VS. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE AHMEDABAD [LAWS(GJH)-1992-4-9] [REFERRED TO]
SUBBIAH ALIAS TIRUVOTIYUR SUBBAIYAH ALIAS MAHADEVAN VS. COMMISSIONER OFPOLICC MADRAS [LAWS(MAD)-1993-2-22] [REFERRED TO]
GITA MAHENSARIA VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(CAL)-2004-5-30] [REFERRED TO]
USHA AGARWAL VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(CAL)-2006-4-4] [REFERRED TO]
DAGADIBAI ANAND JADHAV VS. S C MALHOTRA COMMISSIONER OF POLICE [LAWS(BOM)-1997-11-51] [REFERRED TO]
SUBHANGI TUKARAM SAWANT VS. R H MENDONCA COMMISSIONER OF POLICE [LAWS(BOM)-2000-9-70] [REFERRED TO]
SHUBHANGI TUKARAM SAWANT VS. R H MENDONCA COMMISSIONER OF POLICE [LAWS(BOM)-2001-9-63] [REFERRED TO]
N KANCHANA VS. STATE OF TAMIL NADU [LAWS(MAD)-2007-8-241] [REFERRED TO]
MANI VS. STATE OF TAMILNADU [LAWS(MAD)-2007-11-428] [REFERRED TO]
MANNAR ALIAS EZHILARASAN ALIAS SURESH ALIAS ARIF VS. STATE OF TAMIL NADU [LAWS(MAD)-2007-12-119] [REFERRED TO]
ASHOK KUMAR VS. SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT [LAWS(MAD)-2007-12-108] [REFERRED TO]
YOGINBHAI NITINBHAI PATEL VS. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE [LAWS(GJH)-2012-10-92] [REFERRED TO]
DINESH VITTHAL PATIL VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-2011-6-208] [REFERRED TO]
SANOJ YADAV VS. THE STATE OF BIHAR AND ORS. [LAWS(PAT)-2014-6-65] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA VS. MEHAMUD [LAWS(SC)-2007-6-25] [REFERRED TO]
MOHMAD SARIF ALIAS KALIO NURMOHAMADSARNIBAPU SHAIKH VS. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE [LAWS(GJH)-1996-9-33] [REFERRED TO]
AMANULLAKHAN KUDRATALLAKHAN PATHAN VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-1999-4-5] [REFERRED TO]
FIROZKHAN HUSEINMIYA RATHOD VS. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE FOR THE CITY OF AHMEDABAD [LAWS(GJH)-1999-8-3] [RELIED ON]
RAMESH VANDHA MODHWADIA VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-2009-9-366] [REFERRED TO]
SULEMAN ALIAS CHITRO HAJI SUMAR NIGAMNA VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-2011-3-32] [REFERRED TO]
PHULWARI JAGDAMBAPRASAD PATHAK VS. R.H. MENDONCA [LAWS(BOM)-2000-1-86] [REFERRED TO]
SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT VS. NABILA [LAWS(SC)-2014-12-35] [REFERRED TO]
GAJENDRASINH VS. STATE OF GUJARAT AND ORS. [LAWS(GJH)-2015-5-95] [REFERRED TO]
PRABHASH KUMAR JHA VS. THE STATE OF BIHAR AND ORS. [LAWS(PAT)-2014-8-111] [REFERRED TO]
SANTOSH KASHINATH KAMBLE VS. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-2016-3-173] [REFERRED TO]
SOKKALINGAM, KUILA VS. STATE OF TAMIL NADU [LAWS(MAD)-2007-6-435] [REFERRED]
N KANCHANA, V NATRAJAN VS. SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, PROHIBITION AND EXCISE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, [LAWS(MAD)-2007-8-480] [REFERRED]
ASHOK KUMAR VS. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE [LAWS(MAD)-2007-12-586] [REFERRED]
MASANAM VS. DISTRICT MAGISTRATE AND COLLECTOR OF TIRUNELVELI KATTABOMMAN DISTRICT AND ANOTHER [LAWS(MAD)-1992-7-70] [REFERRED]
ABDUL VS. THE STATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER [LAWS(ALL)-2013-4-329] [REFERRED TO]
MICHEL VS. TAYAPPA AND OTHERS [LAWS(KAR)-2016-3-457] [REFERRED TO]
CHANDBADSHAH VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-2020-6-603] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

K. Jayachandra Reddy, J. - (1.)We allowed the Writ Petition vide our Order dated 7-8-90 and released the detenu for the reasons to be given later. We accordingly proceed to give the reasons.
(2.)The petitioner was detained under S. 3(1) of the Gujarat Prevention of Anti-Social Activities Act, 1985 ('Act' for short) by an Order dated 13-3-90 passed by the Commissioner of Police, Ahmedabad City. The grounds were served within time. The said order is challenged in this Writ Petition. It is mainly contended that the detaining authority has not applied his mind in passing the detention order inasmuch as the relevant material has not been taken into account at the time of passing the order. Even otherwise, according to the learned Counsel, there are absolutely no grounds which warrant detention. It is also further submitted that the provisions of the Act are not attracted even if all the averments in the grounds are accepted. To appreciate this contention it becomes necessary to refer to the contents of the grounds in brief.
(3.)The detenu is a resident of Ahmedabad City. There is a reference in the grounds about three crimes registered in various police stations and they are Crimes Nos. 122/86, 70/ 88 and 96/ 90. In all these cases it is alleged that the detenu and his associates armed with deadly weapons like Swords, Dhariya and fire-arms committed offences punishable , under Ss. 307, 451, 143, 147, 148, I.P.C. and S. 25(1) of the Arms Act. So far as the first two crimes are concerned admittedly the detenu was acquitted. In Crime No. 96/90, in which investigation is pending, bail was granted. Then there is a reference to 8 crimes under the provisions of the Prohibition Act registered in Kagdapith Police Station on the basis whereof he is described as a 'bootlegger' within the meaning of Sec. 2(b) of the Act., Some ended in conviction and some are pending in trial but admittedly the detenu does not figure in any one of these cases. Thereafter it is stated in the grounds in general that the detenu was having dangerous weapons and with the aid of his associates, has been subjecting innocent citizens to physical beating causing physical injuries and that he and his associates have been threatening and beating the peace loving citizens and people residing and doing their business in the said area are afraid and an atmosphere of fear, danger and terror prevails and that the detenu comes within the meaning of dangerous person' as defined under S. 2(c) of the Act. The detaining authority has also referred to an earlier detention order dated 20-8-85 passed against the detenu and noted that he was released by the High Court. Then the detaining authority proceeds to mention that taking action under S. 59(1) of the Bombay Police Act, 1951 is not possible and also is not appropriate under the circumstances. In the concluding paragraph it is particularly mentioned that the detenu was a strong-headed 'dangerous person' and he was using the dangerous weapons creating an atmosphere of terror. Towards the end it is specifically mentioned that in respect of Crime No. 96/ 90 registered with the Sattelite Police Station, the Chief Judicial Magistrate had remanded him to the judicial custody till 15-3-90 and there are chances of his being released. therefore to prevent him from acting prejudicially to the maintenance of public order, the detention was ordered.
;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.