AMANULLA KHAN KUDEATALLA KHAN PATHAN versus STATE OF GUJARAT AND ORS.

Citation: [1999] 3 S.C.R. 807 · Decided: 28-06-1999 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: G.B. PATTANAIK, D.P. WADHWA · Disposal: Dismissed

cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

AMANULLA KHAN KUDEATALLA KHAN PATHAN 
A 
v. 
STATE OF GUJARAT AND ORS. 
JUNE 28, 1999 
[G.B. PATTANAIK AND D.P. WADHWA, JJ.] 
B 
Criminal Law : 
Gujarat Prevention of Anti-Social Activities Act, 1985-Section 2(c)-
"Dangerous person"-Preventive detention of-Detenu on two incidents C 
demanded money from a person by putting him to fear of death and on his 
refusal dragged and assaulted him-Held, In order to be a "dangerous 
person" the detenu should be a habitual offender-Expression "habitually" 
means repeatedly or persistently or continuously-Therefore, one isolated 
incident for which a criminal case is registered against a person is not 
sufficient to hold him a dangerous person-However, the satisfaction of the D 
detaining authority holding the detenu to be a dangerous person based on 
the two incidents, not vitiated 
Section 3(4)-Preventive detention-Public order-Detenu-Activities 
of-"Jn a manner prejudiciqJ to the maintenance of public order or amounted E 
to breach of law and order"-Determination of-test-Detenu extorted money 
from a person by putting him to fear of death and on refusal dragged and 
assaulted him-Held, Such activities affected the even tempo of life of the 
society-Hence, satisfaction of the detaining authority that such activities 
amounted to disturbance of public order, does not warrant interference. 
Sections I I and I 2-Preventive detention-Detenu-Advisory Board 
did not indicate detenu was to be detained for more than 3 months-Advisory 
Board's report rejecting detenu's representation not produced-No such 
contention raised in High Court-Held, Such contention cannot be raised 
before the Supreme Court-Constitution of India, 1950, Art. 22(5) 
Section I 2-Preventive detention-Detenu-Made representation 
against his detention only to the Advisory Board-Effect of-Held, Detaining 
authority need not consider the same-Such non-consideration does not 
amount to violation of Article 22(5). 
F 
G 
Preventive detention--Detenu-Jn the grounds of detention it was H 
807 
808 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1999] 3 S.C.R. 
A indicated that. the activities of the detenu could not be dealt with under 
Bombay Police Act-Held, Detaining authority is not required to state in the 
grounds of detention the reasons therefore. 
B 
Words and Phrases: "Habitually"-Meaning of-Jn the context ofS.2(c) 
of the Gujarat Prevention of Anti-Social Activities Act, 1985. 
The appellant-detenu belonged to a notorious gang and hatched a 
conspiracy to extort money from people by putting them to fear of death and 
demanded a sum of Rs. 1 lakh on the first occasion and when the person 
concerned refused, he was dragged and assaulted; on the second occasion the 
appellant-detenu demanded a sum of Rs. 50,000 and on refusal, the persons 
C were dragged and were beaten on the public road. Prior to these incidents 
there was also a criminal case registered against the appellant-detenu. The 
detaining authority, therefore, declared the appellant-detenu as a "dangerous 
person" under Section 2(c) of the Gujarat Prevention of Anti-Social Activities 
Act, 1985 and detained the appellant-detenu. The High Court upheld the 
D detention order. Hence this appeal. 
On behalf of the appellant-detenu it was contended that the detention 
order was based only on a solitary incident for which a criminal case was 
registered against the appellant, that the activities of the appellant were 
violations of the normal criminal law and had no connection with maintenance 
E of public order and therefore, the detention order passed under S.3 of the 
Act was illegal; that the Advisory Board had not indicated that the appellant 
was to be detained for more than three months and, therefore, Article 22(5) 
of the Constitution was violated; that even though the appellant made a 
representation to the Advisory Board against his detention yet the non-
F consideration of the same by the detaining authority was violative of Article 
22(5) of the Constitution and that in the grounds of detention no reasons 
were given that the activities of the detenu could not be dealt with under the 
Bombay Police Act. 
G 
Dismissing the appeal, this Court 
HELD: 1.1. The expression "habitually" occurring in Section 2(c) of 
the Gujarat Prevention of Anti-Social Activities Act, 1985 would obviously 
mean 'repeatedly' or 'persistently'. It supplies the threat of continuity of the 
activities and, therefore, an isolated act would not justify an inference of 
habitual commission of the 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.