MANJURHUSEN AHMEDHUSEN Vs. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, AHMEDABAD
LAWS(GJH)-1988-10-18
HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT
Decided on October 28,1988

Manjurhusen Ahmedhusen Appellant
VERSUS
COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, AHMEDABAD Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

EAST INDIA DWELLING CO. V. FINSBURY BOROUGH COUNCIL [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF BOMBAY V. PANDURANG VINAYAK [REFERRED TO]
VIJAY KUMAR V. UNION INDIA [REFERRED TO]
GANGA RAMCHAND BHARVANI VS. UNDER SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF MAHARASHTRA [REFERRED TO]
HASMUKH S/O BHAGWANJI M. PATEL VS. THE STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS. [REFERRED TO]
L M S UMMU SALEEMA VS. B B GUJARAL [REFERRED TO]
WASIUDDIN AHMED VS. DISTRICT MAGISTRATE ALIGARH U P [REFERRED TO]
RAMVEER JATAV VS. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

PER KAPADIA, J. - (1.)THE petitioner who is the detenu has filed the present petition against the impugned order of detention passed by the Commissioner of Police, Ahmedabad City, on 9 -1 -1988, on his being satisfied with respect to the present detenu Manjurhusein Ahmedhusen, resident of Baukhari Muhallah Dariapur, Ahmedabad, that with a view to preventing him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order in the area of Ahmedabad City, it is necessary to make an order directing that he be detained. The petitioner was served with the order of detention as also the grounds of detention after he was taken to the Ahmedabad Central Prison on the same day, i. e. 9 -3 -1988.
(2.)ON persual of the grounds of detention it appears that there are as many as 13 cases filed against him from 1985 to 1988 under the provisions of the Bombay Prohibition Act. Two cases are of 1985, five cases are of 1986, six cases are of 1987 and two cases are of 1988. Out of the said cases some are pending in the court while others are pending for investigation. In each of the said case country liquor was seized from the petitioner's possession. In some cases the quantity of the country liquor seized was 16 Itrs., in some cases 47 ltrs., in some cases 151 ltrs., in some cases 116 ltrs. and in some cases 210 Itrs. In addition to this the statements of six witnesses have been recorded. The statements of witnesses No. 5 and 6 were recorded on 1 -3 -1988 and 3 -3 -1988. The agent and by saying this the detenu brought out mathra (razor) and when the said witness started running away the people of the road also ran helter -skelter. Therefore, there was traffic jam and an atmosphere of terror was created. The incident relating to the witness No. 6 took place on 3 -3 -1988 at 11 -00 a. m. near Ghandan Talavadi, Dariapur. When he was passing that area, the petitioner demanded money for purchasing liquor and an refusal by the witness to pa him the amount he (petitioner) became angry and he took away Rs. 500/ - from him and during the scuffle other persons have also gathered and the detenu assaulted the said witness with open knife when he was trying to run away. Due to the said incident there was an atmosphere of terror. Considering all these circumstances and on finding truth in the statements made by the witnesses the detaining authority has stated in the grounds that he is not giving the names and addresses of the witnesses as per their request and finding truth in their apprehension. The detaining authority has also considered the alternative less drastic remedies and specifically mentioned about taking of bond under Section 93 of the Bombay Prohibition Act, externment under Section 57C of the Bombay Police Act, prosecution under ordinary law so also the petitioner being released on bail, but according to the detaining authority all the remedies under the ordinary law were not sufficient and/or adequate to immediately stopping the detenu from continuing his aforesaid activities and therefore, as there was no other alternative left the order of detention came to be passed.
(3.)IN the petition various grounds have been raised challenging the validity and legality of the said order, but Mr. H. L. Patel, learned Advocate for the petitioner has pressed before us the following grounds :
(1) That the petitioner is illiterate and the grounds of detention were not read over to him and therefore, he was not communicated the grounds and was not given opportunity to make representation at the earliest as required under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India ; (2) That the alternative remedy of externment under Section 568 of the Bombay Police Act has not been considered by the detaining authority and therefore, the order has been passed mechanically without applying mind on that point ; (3) That copies of the documents which are supplied to the detenu in support of the grounds of detention as also the ground of detention are not legible : (4) That the detaining authority himself has not considered that it would be against the public interest to disclose the names and addresses of the witnesses and therefore, non -disclosure of the names and addresses of the witnesses has also resulted in depriving the petitioner an opportunity of making adequate representation against the impugned order.

So far as the first ground is concerned, the petitioner has raised the the same in para -4 of the petition. According to him, he is illiterate and he has not studied any language. He does not know how to read and write any language. According to him he was not informed that he was arrested in pursuance of the impugned detention order and that he was not informed about the grounds of detention. He has further stated that he was not read over and explained the contents of the grounds of detention and therefore, his fundamental right of the grounds being communicated and earlier opportunity of making representation granted under the Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India is violated.

;


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