RAJENDRAKUMAR NATVARLAL SHAH versus STATE OF GUJARAT &. ORS.

Citation: [1988] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 287 · Decided: 10-05-1988 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.P. SEN · Disposal: Dismissed
cites 3 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

r 
! 
RAJENDRAKVMAR ·NATV ARLAL. SHAH-
"· 
STATE OF GUJARAT.&.. ORS. 
MAY JO, 1988 
[A.P. SEN AND L.M. SHARMA, JJ.] 
Gujarat Prevention of Anti_Social Activities Act, 1985 challeng-
ing detention under sub__s. (2) of s. 3--of-
This appeal by special leave against the judgment of the High 
Court in writ petition, and the writ petition filed in this Court were 
directed against an order of detention passed by the District Magistrale 
against the appellant under sub-s. (2) of s. 3 of the Gujarat Prevention 
of Anti-Social Activities Act, 1985 with a view to preventing him fro!D 
acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. 
The appellant was a comission agent or broker engaged in illicit 
business of liquor traffic atGodhara in the State of Gujarat where there 
is total prolnoition by importing liquor from V answada in Rajasthan. 
A 
B 
c 
D 
On prior information that the appellant was about to import 
liquor in a truck on the night between 29th/30th December, 1986, the 
Gujarat police intercepted the truck and found it laden with cases 
E 
containlng bottles of whisky and beer, etc. It was evident from the 
statements Of the driver and the cleaner that the appellant had 
purchased the liquor from V answada. The appellant could not be 
traced till 2nd February, 1987, when he was arrested but later released 
on bail. On 28th May, 1987, the District Magistrate, Godhara, passed 
an order of.detention and served it alongwith the grounds of detention 
F 
on the appellaflt on the 30th when he was taken into custody. The 
immediate and proximate cause for the detention was that on 29th/30th 
December, 1986, he had transported in bulk foreign liquor from Vans-
wada in Rajasthan for delivery in the State of Gujarat and indulged in 
anti-social activities by doing illicit business of foreign liquor. The 
grounds furnished particulars Of two other criminal cases, namely (i) · G 
Criminal Case No. 303/82 on account of recovery of 142 bottles of 
foreign liquor seized from his residence on 21st July, 1982, which had 
ended in acquittal as the prosecution witnesses turned hostile, and (Ii) 
Criminal Case No. 150/86 relating to seizure of 24 bottles of foreign 
liquor from his house on 30th May, 1986, which was still pending. 
H 
287 
A 
B 
c 
D 
288 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1988] Supp. l S.C.R. 
The appellant filed the writ petition in the High Court assailing 
the order of detention. The High Court declined to interfere. The appel-
lant then filed in this Court· the appeal by special leave against the 
decision of the High Court and the writ petition, against the order or 
detention. 
Dismissing the appeal and the writ petition, the Court 
HELD: When any person is detained in pursuance of an order 
made under any law of preventive detention, the authority making the 
order shall, as soon as may be, communicate to such person the grounds 
of detention and afford him the earliest opportunity of making a rep-
resentation against the order. The power of preventive detention under 
any law for preventive detention is necessarily subject to the limitations 
enjoined on the .exercise of such power by Art. 22(5) as construed by 
this Court. The Court must be circumspect in striking down an order of 
detention where it. meets with the· requirements of Art. 22(5) of the 
· Constitution. l294C-E; 2950-E] 
Since preventive detention is a serious inroad on individual liberty 
and its justification is the prevention of inherent danger of activity 
prejudicial to the community, the detaining authority must be satisfied 
as to the sufficiency of the grounds which justify the taking of the 
drastic measure of preventive detention. The requirements of Art. 22(5) 
E 
are satisfied once 'basic facts and materials' which weighed with the 
detaining authority in reaching bis subjective satisfaction are commu-
nicated to the detenu. There is apt to be some delay between the preju-
dicial activity complained of ins. 3(1) of the Act and the making of an 
order of detention. When a person is detected in the act of smuggling or 
foreign exchange racketeering, the Directorate of Enforcement has to 
F 
make a thorough investigation into all the facts with a view to determin-
ing the identity of the persons engaged in these operations. Their state-
ments have to be recor.ded; their books of accounts and other related 
documents have to be examined. Sometimes such investigation bas to be 
carried on for months together. The Directorate has
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.