RASHIDMIYA @ CHHAVA AHMEDMIYA SHAIK versus POLICE COMMISSIONER, AHMEDABAD & ANR.

Citation: [1989] 3 S.C.R. 182 · Decided: 05-05-1989 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: B.C. RAY · Disposal: Case Allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
RASHIDMIYA@ CHHAVA AHMEDMIYA SHAIK 
v. 
POLICE COMMISSIONER, AHMEDABAD & ANR. 
MAY 5, 1989 
[B.C. RAY ANDS. RATNAVEL PANDIAN, JJ.] 
Gujarat Prevention of Anti-social Activities Act, 1985: Sections, 
2(b), 2(c), 3 and 6. 
Preventive detention-Order-Grounds of detention-Severabi-
C 
lity and validity of-'Bootlegger'-Activities of-Whether prejudicial to 
-~ 
maintenance of public order. 
'Dangerous person'-Detenu-Whether should be a habitual 
offender under Chapter XVI or XVII or XXII of Indian Penal Code or 
D 
under Chapter V of Arms Act. 
Words. and Phrases: 'Maintenance of public order'-'Boot-
legger'-' Dangerous person'-Meaning of 
E 
The petitioner was detained, under an order passed by the detain-
ing authority under Section 3(1) of the Gujarat Prevention of Anti 
Social Activities Act, 1985, with a view to preventing him from acting in 
any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. The detain-
ing authority reached his subjective satisfaction on the grounds (i) that 
the detenu was a 'bootlegger' within the meaning of Section 2(b) of the 
_\ 
F 
Act because he was indulging in criminal and anti-social activities by 
-
illegally storing and selling foreign liquor and beer and that four cases 
were registered against him under the Bombay Prohibition Act, 1949; 
(ii) that he was also a 'dangerous person' within the meaning of section 
2(c) of the Act because he, as a member of a particular gang, was 
spreading an atmosphere of fear aud terror by beating innocent people 
G in the Ahmedabad city thus affecting the public order adversely and a 
case was also registered against him under Section l20(B), 212 and 307 
y· 
of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 25 of the Arms Act besides 
under the provisions of various other Acts. 
The petitioner filed a writ petition in this Court challenging the 
H validity of the detention order contending that the conclusions drawn by 
182 
RASHIDMIYA v. POLICE COMMISSIONER AHMEDABAD 
183 
the detaining authority were not supported by materials. 
Quashing the detention order and allowing the Writ Petition, 
HELD: 1. To bring a person within the definition of Section 2(c) 
of the Act ii must be shown that the person either by himself or as a 
member of or a leader of a gang habitually commits or attempts to 
commit or abets the commission of offences punishable under Chapter 
XVI or XVII or XXII of the Indian Penal Code or any of the offences 
punishable under Chapter V of the Arms Act. It most be shown that he 
is habitually committing or attempting lo commit or abetting the com-
mission of offences enumerated therein. [187-H; 1888] 
1.1 In the instant case, the detenu is said to have committed 
offences under Sections 307, 120-B, 212 of the Indian Penal Code and 
Section 25 of the Arms Act besides under the provisions of various other 
Acts. Only one case registered under the provisions of Section 307 of the 
Indian Penal Code and Section 25 of the Arms Act falls within the said 
definition clause. The other two offences registered under Sections 120-B 
and 212 are not covered under Section 2(c). Therefore, this solitary 
incident would hardly be sufficient to conclude that the detenu was 
habitually committing or attempting to commit or abetting the commis-
/~ sion of offences. The general and vague allegations made in the grounds 
of detention that the detenu was taking active part in communal riots and 
entered into conspiracy to spread an atmosphere of terror being a 
member of a particular gang in the absence of any specific instance or 
~ 
registration of any case thereof, cannot be construed as offences falling 
under any of the above three chapters of the Indian Penal Code or 
, 
chapter V of the Arms Act enumerated under Section 2(c) so as to 
. _J_ characterise the detenu as a 'dangerous person'. [188A-E] 
2. A conjoint reading of Section 2(b) and Section 3(4) with the 
explanation annexed thereto clearly spells out that in order lo clamp an 
order of detention upon a 'bootlegger' under Section 3 of the Act, the 
detaining authority must not only be satisfied that the person is a 
'bootlegger' within the meaning of section 2(b) but also that the 
activities of the said bootlegger affect adversely or likely to affect 
y · adversely the maintenance of public order. [188H, I89A] 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
2.1 In the instant case, the vague allegations in the grounds of 
detention that the detenu is the main member of a particular gang 
indulging in bootleggi

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