DHARAMDAS SHAMLAL AGARWAL versus POLICE COMMISSIONER & ANR.

Citation: [1989] 2 S.C.R. 43 · Decided: 16-03-1989 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: B.C. RAY · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

' 
.. 
DHARAMDAS SHAMLAL AGARWAL 
A 
v. 
POLICE COMMISSIONER & ANR. 
MARCH 16, 1989 
[B.C. RAY AND S. RATNAVEL PANDIAN, JJ.] 
B 
Gujarat Prevention of Anti-Social Activities Act, 1985: SS. 3(2) 
& 6-Detention Order-Validity of-Material and vital fact having a 
bearing on the issue not placed before detaining authority-Held, 
requisite subjective satisfaction vitiated by non-1Jpplication of mind. 
The petitioner was detained under an order dated 17th 
September, 1988 made by the detaining authority under sub-s. (2) of 
c 
s. 3 of the Gujarat Prevention of Anti-Social Activities Act, 1985 with a 
view to prevent him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the 
maintenance of public order. The grounds of detention mentioned five 
offen~es registered against him with police records, out of which the 
D 
first one under s. 324 IPC was stated to have been compromised, the 
second under. s. 332 IPC and the third under ss. 148 and 307 IPC 
respectively were stated to be pending trial, the fourth under s. 302 IPC 
was stated not proved, while the fifth under s. 302 IPC was stated to be 
in the court. 
The Government approved the said order on 21st September, 
1988. The detenu submitted his representation dated 22nd September, 
1988 to the first respondent who by his order dated 30th September, 
1988 rejected the same. He thereupon, filed this petition under Article 
32 of the Constitution. 
It was contended for the petitioner that he has been acquitted even 
on 26th August, 1988 in. the case shown at serial No. 2 iu the Table 
appended to the grounds of detention, and on 6th June, 1988 in the case 
shown at Serial No. 3, that this material and vital fact of his acquittal in 
the said cases had not been placed before the detaining authority and 
E 
F 
this non-placing and the consequent non-consideration of the said mate-
G 
rial likely to influence the mind of the detaining authority vitiates the 
subjective satisfaction and invalidates the detention order, that the 
names of his so-called associates were nowhere disclosed which fact 
would show either the authority did not know as to who these associates 
were or knowing their names has refrained from furnishing it to the 
detenu thereby disabling him to make his effective representation, and H 
43 
44 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1989] 2 S.C.R. 
that the grounds of detention otherwise were vague or deficient. For the 
)4 
A 
respondent it was contended that each activity of tile petitioner was a 
separate ground of detention and that the fact that the petitioner was 
acquitted in the said cases was of no consequence. 
B 
c 
Allowing the writ petition, 
HELD: The requisite subjective satisfaction, the formation of 
which is a condition precedent to passing of a detention order, will get 
vitiated if material or vital facts which would have bearing on the issue 
and weighed the satisfaction of the detaining authority one way or the 
other and influenced his mind are either withheld or suppressed by the 
sponsoring authority or ignored and not considered by the detaining 
authority before issuing the detention order. [5 ID-EI 
In the instant case, at the time when the detaining authority 
passed the detention order the vital fact of acquittal of the detenu in 
cases mentioned at serial Nos. 2 and 3 had not been brought to his notice 
D 
and on the other hand it was withheld and the detaining authority was 
given to understand that the trial of those cases was pending. This 
non-placing of the material fact resulting in non-application of the mind 
of the detaining authority to the said fact has vitiated the requisite 
subjective satisfaction, rendering the impugned detention order 
invalid. The same is, therefore, set-aside. The detenu be set at liberty 
E 
forthwith. [51E, F, G, H] 
S.K. Nizamuddin v. State of West Bengal, AIR 1974 SC 2353; 
Suresh Mahato v. The District Magistrate, Burdwan & Ors., AIR 1975 
SC 728; Asha Devi v. Additional Secretary to the Government of 
Gujarat & Anr., [1979] 2 SCR 215 and Sita Ram Somani v. State of 
F 
Rajasthan & Ors., [1986] 2 SCC 86 referred to. 
Shiv Rattan Makim v. Union of India & Ors., [1985] Supp. (3) 
SCR 843 and Subharta v. State of West Bengal [1973] SCC 250, 
distinguished. 
G 
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 537 
,.._ 
of 1988. 
-" 
(Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India.) 
,.. 
Dr. Y.S. Chitale, M.K. Pandit, P.H. Parekh, J.H. Parekh and 
H M.N. Sompal for the Petitioner. 
r
D.S. AGARWAL v. POLICE COMM

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