BALDEVBHAI CHHAGANBHAI MAKWANA v. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE

CORAM : MR.JUSTICE K.R.VYAS Date of decision: 24/07/1996 ORAL JUDGEMENT (cid:9)The petitioner Baldev Chhaganbhai Makwana in this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has challenged the legality and validity of the order of his detention dated 22.1.1996 passed under sec. 3(1) of the Gujarat Prevention of Anti Social Activities Act, 1985 (hereinafter referrred to as the 'PASA Act') by the Police Commissioner, Ahmedabad City (hereinafter referred to as the 'detaining authority'). (cid:9)As can be seen from the grounds of detention supplied to the detenu, on the basis of three prohibition cases and two criminal cases registered under the provisions of IPC coupled with the statements of the witnesses for the alleged incidents dated 25.12.1995 and

1.1.1996 for the alleged anti social and nefarious activities of the detenu, the detaining authority has recorded subjective satisfaction that the detenu is a bootlegger as well as a dangerous person and with a view to preventing the detenu from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order it was necessary to pass the order of detention against the detenu and, therefore, the impugned order is passed, which is under challenge in the present petition. (cid:9)Mr. Raval learned advocate for the petitioner submitted that the statements recorded against the detenu have not been varified either by the Investigating Officer or by the detaining authority and, therefore, the powers under section 9(2) of the PASA Act exercised by the detaining authority in not disclosing the identity of the witnesses to the detenu is not genuine and the detenu is denied his valuable right to make an effective representation against the allegations made by the witnesses.

Mr. Raval, therefore, submitted that the petition is required to be allowed. IN view of the fact that in the instant case, no affidavit is filed on behalf of the respondents, I have called upon learned AGP Mr. Bhatt to produce the case file. Having perused the case file, it appears that the detaining authroity in his own hand-writting considered the material placed before him and on being satisfied with the same, he has passed the impugned order. However, nothing is stated by him about the apprehension of the witnesses regarding their safety and security warranting him not to disclose their identitiy by exercising the powers under sec. 9(2) of the PASA Act. Similarly, no instruction is given by him to the Investigating Officer who has recorded the statements to verify the statements of the witnesses. Mr. Bhatt learned AGP pointed out that the detaining authority has taken proper care and has considered the material placed before him minutely and, therefore, verification is not necessary.