MANNSING BABUSING THAKORE Vs. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE
LAWS(GJH)-1988-3-6
HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT
Decided on March 07,1988

MANNSING BABUSING THAKORE Appellant
VERSUS
COMMISSIONER OF POLICE Respondents


Cited Judgements :-

MICHEL JOSEPH LAWRANCE VS. DISTRICT MAGISTRATE AND DISTRICT COLLECTOR TIRUNELVELI [LAWS(MAD)-1996-4-40] [REFERRED TO]
SIBA LENKA VS. STATE OF ORISSA AND ORS. [LAWS(ORI)-1990-2-16] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

B.S.KAPADIA, J. - (1.)The present petition is filed by the detenu against the order of detention passed against him on 13th June, 1987 by the Commissioner of Police, Ahmedabad under S.3 of the Gujarat Prevention of Anti-Social Activities Act, on his being satisfied that with a view to preventing him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order, it is necessary to make an order directing that the present petitioner should be detained. The said order was executed on the same day and he was also supplied with the grounds of detention Annexure-'C' to the petition on 16th of June, 1987.
(2.)On perusal of the grounds, it appears that there are six cases filed against him under Prohibition Act and there were cases under Ss.66B and 65E. The case No. 628 of 1985 was pending the trial and others were under investigation. Accordingly, the detaining authority was satisfied that the present petitioner was a bootlegger. He also relied on the statements of certain persons recorded by him on 13th May, 1987 and he was also satisfied that the petitioner's activities as bootleggar were such as to disturb the public order. He also considered the other relevant circumstances for arriving at the subjective satisfaction that it was necessary to pass the detention order against the present petitioner and, accordingly, he passed the impugned-order of detention.
(3.)In this petition various grounds were raised, but at the time of argument, Mr. H.L. Patel, learned advocate for the petitioner, pressed only one point. The said point is that the detaining authority has failed to discharge his statutory obligation under S.3(3) of the PASA Act to forthwith report the fact of detention along with the grounds of detention and other relevant papers to the State Government and according to his submission in paragraph 13 of the petition, the continued detention is bad in law. The detaining authority has filed counter-affidavit and while dealing with this point raised in paragraph 13 of the petition, he only stated that this aspect is already dealt with in the beginning paragraphs and the court may permit him to refer to and rely upon the same. On perusal of the earlier paragraphs and particularly paragraph 3 thereof, it is clear that the grounds of detention were served on the petitioner detenu in Sabarmati prison on 16th June, 1987. Thereafter it is stated on oath by the detaining authority that the report which is required to be sent to the State Government along with the grounds of detention and other materials which have bearing on the impugned order of detention was sent to the State Government on 16th June, 1987, i.e. within the stipulated period of seven days and the State Government in its turn approved the same by an order dated 17th June, 1987. However, at the time of hearing, Mr. Divatia, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor stated that, in fact, the fact of intimation was reported to the State Government by the letter dated 13th May (June), 1987 and, therefore, there is proper compliance with the statutory requirement under S.3(3) of the PASA Act.
;


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