BHARATKUMAR Vs. DIST MAGISTRATE BHARUCH
LAWS(GJH)-1988-8-11
HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT
Decided on August 12,1988

BHARATKUMAR Appellant
VERSUS
DIST.MAGISTRATE, BHARUCH Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

FRANCES CORALIE MULLIN VS. W G KHAMBRA [REFERRED TO]
L M S UMMU SALEEMA VS. B B GUJARAL [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

RAVANI, J. - (1.)The petitioner has been detained pursuant to the order dt. March 5, 1988 passed by the District Magistrate, Bharuch, under the provisions of the Prevention of Blackmarketing and Maintenance of Supplies of Essential Commodities Act, 1980 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act" for short). The order has been passed with a view to preventing the petitioner from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of supplies of commodities essential to the community.
(2.)In the grounds of detention it is disclosed that the petitioner was running a fair-price shop at village Kavitha, Taluka Bharuch, in respect of which the licence was issued in the name of one Bipinchandra Jagdishbhai Patel. The petitioner himself posed to be Bipinchandra Jagdishbhai Patel before the public as well as before the relevant Government Officers. He has signed as Bipinchandra Jagdisbhai Patel in various Government records and in the records maintained for purposes of running fair-price shop. Thus he misrepresented before the people by impersonation and committed the offence of cheating the people as well as the Government. The fair-price shop was raided and searched between Feb. 19 and Feb. 26, 1988. In respect of essential commodities such as pamolena oil, rice, sugar wheat etc., the stock-registers were not properly maintained and the stock was not in accordance with the registers. Eight false bills were issued in the name of fictitious persons as far as "food for all scheme" is concerned, while in the scheme for "public distribution of food" even false bills were issued in respect of sugar, pamolena oil and rice. Several irregularities of similar nature were found and the same are mentioned in the grounds of detention. It is not necessary to refer to all of them for the purposes of deciding this petition. Suffice it to say that as mentioned in the grounds of detention it is disclosed that while running fair-price shop by impersonation as Bipinchandra Jagdishbhai Patel, the petitioner is alleged to have committed several offences for breach of the Gujarat Essential Commodities (Licence Regulation and Declaration of Stock) Order, 1981 and is also alleged to have committed offence under Ss.416 and 417 of I.P.C. The petitioner-detenu has been served with the grounds of detention and copies of documents on which reliance was placed by the detaining authority.
(3.)The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that there was no material with the detaining authority to show that the alleged irregularities were committed "with a view to making gain". In her submission the provisions of S.3(1) of the Act read with the explanation required that the alleged irregularities should have been committed "with a view to making gain". In support of the aforesaid submission reliance is placed on the decision of this High Court in Special Criminal Application No. 1110 of 1986 decided on Dec. 23, 1986 (coram) D.C. Gheewala and J.P. Desai, JJ.) (a short note of the aforesaid judgement has been reported in 1987 (1) Guj LJ (UJ) 13). In that case the accused had sold 257 oil tins without issuing bills. The detaining authority either in the order passed by it or in the grounds where mentioned that he had satisfied himself that the aforesaid illegal activity was "with a view to making gain". Since there was no material with the detaining authority on the basis of which he could have come to the conclusion that the detenu had committed the alleged acts "with a view to making gain", the order of detention was quashed and set aside.
;


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