HARIVADAN MODI Vs. DISTRICT MAGISTRATE BHARUCH
HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT
District Magistrate Bharuch
Click here to view full judgement.
KAPADIA, J. -
(1.)The present petition is filed by the petitioner, who is detained by the order of detention dated 1-3-1988 passed by the District Magistrate, Bharuch, under the Gujarat Prevention of Anti-Social Activities Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') on his being satisfied with regard to the petitioner that with a view to preventing him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order it was necessary to pass order of detention. In pursuance of the said order he was detained on 2-3-1988 at about 9.30 a.m. He was also served with the grounds of detention dated 1-3-1988 on the same day.
(2.)On perusal of the ground it appears that six prohibition cases being C.R. Nos. 1979/86, 1153/86, 323/87, 422/87, 493/87 and 642/87 all of Ankleshwar Police Station, have been filed against him. So far as the first case is concerned, a raid was conducted by the police at the residence of the petitioner on 11-7-86 and 16 litres of country liquor was taken possession of. So far as the second case is concerned, a raid was conducted by the police on 2-8-1986 and 35 bottles of Brandhy were taken possession of from the petitioner's residence. So far as the 3rd case is concerned, a raid was conducted by the police at the petitioner's residence on 25-2-1987 and 15 litres of country liquor was taken possession of from the petitioner's place. In the fourth case, a raid was conducted by the police on 12-3-1987 and 15 litres of country liquor was taken possession of from the petitioner's place. In the fifth case a raid was conducted by the police on 21-3-1987 and five litres of country liquor was taken possession of from the petitioner's place. So far as the sixth case is concerned a raid was conducted on 22-4-1987 at the residence of the petitioner and 15 litres of country liquor was taken possession of from the petitioner's place. There are statements of four witnesses, but it is not necessary to consider all of them. The witness No. 3 Dhulabhai C. Vasava has stated in his statement which was recorded on 20-10-1987 that the petitioner met him about six months back and told him as to why he was giving false evidence as Panch in the prohibition cases filed against the petitioner and so saying he also gave him threat to kill him. On the witness asking him not to be angry the petitioner gave him 2 to 3 slaps on account of which the people of the locality ran scattered.
(3.)On the basis of the aforesaid six cases as also statements of the witnesses the detaining authority came to the conclusion that the petitioner was a bootlegger doing illegal activities of selling liquor and that he was contravening the provisions of the Bombay Prohibition Act. In spite of the police raid and the criminal cases filed against him he had continued his such activities of dealing with illicit liquor and had committed offence under the Bombay Police Act. On the basis of the aforesaid facts the detaining authority was satisfied on the point that the petitioner was doing illegal business of liquor; that he was a headstrong person and was creating an atmosphere of terror in the minds of public of Ankleshwar. He also drew the inference on account of the illegal business of the petitioner that there is possibility of communal riots. On the basis of the aforesaid conclusions the detaining authority was satisfied that there is a possibility of disturbance to the public order in the entire locality and therefore, with a view to preventing him from doing any such activity, it was necessary to detain the petitioner and accordingly, the detaining authority in exercise of powers conferred on him by Sub-Sec. (2) of Sec. 3 of the Act has passed the aforesaid detention order against the petitioner.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.