AYUB @PAPPU KHAN NAWAB KHAN PATHAN versus S.N. SINHA AND ANR.

Citation: [1990] 3 S.C.R. 927 · Decided: 21-08-1990 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.M. AHMADI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

/ 
AYUB @PAPPU KHAN NAWAB KHAN PATHAN 
A 
v. 
) 
S.N. SINHA AND ANR. 
AUGUST 21, 1990 
[A.M. AHMADI, M.M. PUNCHHI AND K. JAYACHANDRA 
B 
REDDY, JJ.] 
Gujarat Prevention of Anti-Social Activities Act, 1985: Sections 
,~ -
2(c) and 3( 1)-"Dangerous person"-Habitually committing offences 
-What is-Not such a person-Detained-Detention order-Validity of 
y 
Words and Phrases: 'Habitually'-Meaning of 
The Petitioner was detained nuder section 3(1) of the Gujarat 
Prevention of Anti-Social Activities Act, 1985. The gounds were served 
within time and referred to 3 crimes registered in various police 
stations, on the allegation that the petitioner and his associates armed 
with deadly weapons committed offences punishable under sections 
307, 451, 143, 147 and 148 IPC, and section 25(1) of the Arms Act. The 
grounds also referred to 8 crimes under the provisions of the Prohibi-
tion Act where he was described as a bootlegger. Earlier detention 
under the Act and release by the High Court were also mentioned. It 
'/ was specifically mentioned that in one of the three cases, the petitioner 
was remanded to judicial custody and since there were chances of his 
being released, the detention was ordered to prevent him from acting 
prejudicially to the maintainance of public order. 
In this Writ Petition, the Petitioner has challenged the validity of 
the detention order passed by the Commissioner of Police. 
i. 
It was contended on behalf of the petitioner that the detaining 
· authority has not applied his mind inasmuch as relevant material has 
not been taken into account and there were absolutely no grounds 
warranting detention. 
· This Court allowed the Petition on. 7.8.1990 for reasons to be 
given later. 
Giving reasons for allowing the Writ Petition, 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
HELD: I. A person is said to be a habitual criminal who by force 
H 
927 
928 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[ 1990] 3 S.C.R. 
A of habit or inward disposition is accustomed to commit crimes. It 
implies commission of such crimes repeatedly or persNently and prima facie - \ 
there should be a continuity in the commission of those offences. [931C-D] 
Vijay Narain Singh v. State of Bihar and Ors., [1984] 3 SCC 14 
and Rashidmiya @ Chhava Ahmedmiya Shaik v. Police Commissioner, 
B Ahmedabad and Anr., [1989) 3 sec 321. relied on. 
2. Unless there is material to show that the detenu committed any 
one of the acts mentioned in the definition, he can not come within the 
meaning of 'Bootlegger'. Though in the grounds there is a refernece to 8 
crimes under the provisions of the Prohibition Act, the detenu, does not 
figure in any one of these cases. There is no material whatsoever of his 
C involvement in any manner in any of these prohibition cases. Therefore, 
he can not be said to be a bootlegger. [930F-Gf 
3. Admittedly, the detenu was acquitted in two of the three crimi-
nal cases against him. The third case, viz .. Crime No. 96 .90 was pend-
0 
ing investigation and the detenu was granted bail. Thus, this is the only 
case pending against him, and the main allegation was that he, out of 
sudden excitement, fired the revolver and as a result of which one 
Mehbub Khan received injury on bis leg and again he fired a shot into 
the air and that he and his associates were moving around in a jeep 
threatening the people in the area. But in the order passed by the \ 
E learned Sessions Judge on 13.3.90 while releasing the petitioner on bail, 
it is noted that the said Mehbub Khan had no fire-arm injury atall and 
as a matter of fact, the public prosecutor conceded the same. The 
learned Sessions Judge has also noted that no medical evidence is pro-
duced to prove that any one was injured during the alleged occurrence. 
If such is the only crime pendng in which the detenu is alleged to have 
F · participated in, it can by no stretch of imagination be said that he comes 
within the meaning of 'dangerous person' and the conclusions drawn by_..-; 
the detaining authority are bereft of sufficient material as required 
under Section 2(c) of the Act. This betrays non-application of mind by 
the detaining authority. Consequently, the grounds on which the deten-
tion order is passed, are irrelevant and non-existing. [932B-E] 
G 
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 
687 of 1990. 
(Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India). 
H 
B.K. Mehta, Ms. Shalini Soni and P.H. Parekh for the Petitioner. 
.,; 
AYUB v. S.N. SINHA [REDDY, J.] 
929 
D.A. Dave, A. Sachthey, C.B. N

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