LexSH. MUSTAKMIYA JABBARMIYA SHAIKH versus SH. M.M. MEHTA, COMMISSIONER OF POLICE AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A SH. MUSTAKMIYA JABBARMIYA SHAIKH v. SH. M.M. MEHTA, COMMISSIONER OF POLICE AND ORS. MARCH 23, 1995 B [S.C. AGRAWAL AND FAIZAN UDDIN, JJ.) Gujarat Prevention of Anti-Social Activities Act, 1985: Section 2(C)-'Dangerous Person'-Detention order against-Material --"4 C must suggest that detenu was committing specified offences habitually. Section 3(1)--Detention order based on:stray and casual criminal ac- tivities of detenu directed against individuals having no adverse impact on public order-Offence not specified in part XVI or XVII of /PC-Mere possession of unlicens~d fire ~rder held invalid-Taking into account D of a stale criminal activity held not justified-Held alleged activities must relate to 'Public Order'-'Public Order' and 'Law and Order'-Distinction between. E Words' and Phrases: · 'Habitually'-Meaning of-Section 2(C) of the Gujarat Prevention of Anti-Social Activities, 1985. With a view to preventing the detenu-petitioner from acting in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order, a detention order F under Section 3(1) of the Gujarat Prevention of Anti-Social Activities, 1985 ·was passed relying on: First, charge under sections 307, 452/34 IPC, 25A(1) Arms Act and Section 135(1) of Bombay Police Act based on an incident in which pursuant to an altercation between the petitioner and the younger brother of the complainant, the petitioner alongwith some of his associate dragged out the complainant from inside a hair cutting saloon while his G associates fired four shots injuring the complainant and another person; Second, charge under sections 212 and 214 IPC for harbouring an absconding offender; Third, he purchased goods worth Rs. 500 and on demand of price thereof he dragged and beat the businessman on public · road; Fourth, he beat a witness doubting that he was informer of police H and also pointed revolver towards persons who gathered there; and Fifth; 960 1(# MJ. SHAIKH v. M.M. MEHTA 961 charge under section 25(1) of the Arms Act for possessing an unlicensed A revolver. On the basis of these cases the detaining authority came to the conclusion that the petitioner was a dangerous person within the definition of section 2(C) of the Act and is habitually engaged in committing and attempting to commit violent activities_ and creating atmosphere of fear. The petitioner filed a writ petition in this Court challenging the B validity of order contending that (i) there was no material to indicate that he was a dangerous person within the meaning of section 2(C); and (ii) the incidents alleged being stray and individual, have no connection with public order though they may relate to law and order. c Allowing the writ. petition and quashing the detention order, the Court HELD: 1. There is no material which may lead to a reasonable and definite conclusion that the detenu-petitioner was habitually engaged in criminal activities and, therefore, a dangerous person. The detaining D authority has passed the impugned detention order without application of mind. Therefore, it could .not be sustained. (974-C] 2. Section 3 of the Gujarat Prevention of Anti-Social Activities Act, 1985 is intended to deal with such criminals who cannot readily be ap- prehended to be booked under the ordinary law and who for special reasons, E cannot be convicted under the penal laws in respect of the offences alleged to have been perpetrated by them. But this power under the Act to detain a person should be exercised with restraint and great caution. In order to pass an order'of detention under the Act apiast any person the detaining authority must be satisfied that he is a 'dangerous person' within the p meaning of Section 2(C) of the Act who habitually commits, or attempts to commit or abets the commission of any of the offences punishable under Chapter XVI or XVII of the Penal Code or any of the offences punishable under Chapter V of the Arms Act as according to sub-section ( 4) of Section 3 of the Act it is such 'dangerous person' who for the purpose of Section 3 shall be deemed '6 be a person 'acting in any manner prejudicial to the G maintenance of public order' against whom an order of detention may lawfully be made. In order to bring a person within the expression 'dangerous person' there should be positive material to indicate that such person is habitually committing or attempting to commit or abetting the commission of offences and a single oi' i
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.