RAJENDRAKUMAR NATVARLAL SHAH Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal by Special leave brought from the judgment and order of the Gujarat High Court dated 21st November, 1987 and the connected petition under Art. 32 of the Constitution are directed against an order passed by the District Magistrate, Panchmahals, Godhra dated 28th May, 1987 for the detention of the appellant under sub-sec. (2) of Sec. 3 of the Gujarat Prevention of Anti-Social Activities Act, 1985 on being satisfied that it was necessary to do so, with a view to preventing him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order.

(2.) It is now an undisputed fact that the appellant is engaged as a commission agent or broker in the rather lucrative but illicit business of liquor traffic at Godhra in the State of Gujarat where there is total prohibition by importing different varieties of Indian made foreign liquor in sealed bottles like scotch whisky, beer etc. from wine merchants of Vanswada in the State of Rajasthan. But then by enaging himself in such activities he falls within the description of a 'bootlegger' as defined to Sec. 2(b) and therefore comes within the ambit of sub-sec. (1) of Sec. 3 of the Act by reason of the legal fiction contained in sub-sec. (4) thereof.

(3.) Put very briefly, the essential facts are these. On prior information that the appellant was about to import Indian made foreign liquor in bulk in truck bearing registration No. GRY 3832, on the night between 29/30th December, 1986, the Gujarat Police put up a road block on the bridge near Machan River where on a sign given it failed to stop. After a long chase, the police jeep was able to intercept the truck at Limdi. Both the driver Ahmed Saiyed Abdul Majid Kalander and cleaner Sadique Ahmed Yusuf Durvesh Shaikh got down and said that the truck was empty. However, on a search it was found to be laden with 77 sealed cases containing 2040 bottles of different brands of scotch whisky, beer etc, and it was evident from the statements of the driver and the cleaner who were arrested, that the appellant was the person who had purchased the liquor from the wine merchants of Vanswada. On 4th January, 1987 the statements of the witnesses were recorded. Apparently, the appellant absconded and he could not be traced till 2nd February, 1987 when he was arrested but later released on bail. In the meanwhile, be moved the Sessions Judge, Panchmahals for anticipatory bail on 21st January, 1987 but no orders were passed inasmuch as the police made a statement that there was no proposal at that stage to place him under arrest. The appellant is being prosecuted for various offences under the Bombay Prohibition Act, 1949 as applicable to the State of Gujarat, in Criminal Case No. 154 of 1986. On 28th May, 1987 i.e. after a lapse of five months the District Magistrate, Panchmahals, Godhra passed the order of detention along with the grounds therefore which was served on the appellant on the 30th when he was taken into custody. The immediate and proximate cause for the detention was that on 29/3 0th December, 1986 he transported in bulk foreign liquor from liquor merchants of Vanswada in the State of Rajasthan intended and meant for delivery to persons indulged in anti-social activities by doing illicit business of foreign liquor in the State of Gujarat. Incidentally, the grounds furnish particulars of two other criminal cases, namely, (i) Criminal Case No. 303 of 1982 on account of recovery of 142 bottles of foreigen liquor recovered and seized from this residential house on 21st July, 1982, but the case ended in an acquittal as the prosecution case witnesses turned hostile, and (ii) Criminal Case No. 150 of 1986 relating to recovery and seizure of 24 bottles of foreign liquor from his house on 30th May, 1986 which case was still pending. It was said that persons like the appellant bringing foreign liquor from other States illegally without a permit on a brokerage and storing the same in their premises are not easily detected and there was no other method of preventing such persons from engaging in such anti-social activities except by detention under Sec. 3(2) of the Act.