SAMPATRAJ UDARAM PRAJAPATI v. POLICE COMMISSIONER
Case at a glance
Outcome
Allowed
Application is allowed and the order of detention dated
Provisions considered
Judgment
Shri Kamal Mehta, AGP for the respondents -------------------------------------------------------------- CORAM : MR.JUSTICE N.N.MATHUR Date of decision: 06/11/96 ORAL JUDGEMENT (cid:9)The petitioner has challenged the order of detention passed by the detaining authority dated 13th June 1996 in exercise of powers conferred on him under sub-section 1, sec.3 of the Gujarat Prevention of Anti Social Activities Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as "the PASA Act"). It is alleged that some cases pertaining to offences under Indian Penal Code have been registered against the petitioner.
2.(cid:9)It is now well settled by the Supreme Court that simply because some stray and casual cases have been registered, the person cannot be apprehended as a dangerous person within the meaning of sec.2(c) of the PASA Act.
Operative part
3.(cid:9)I have perused the material on record with the assistance of the learned counsel. There is nothing material on record, which may show that the petitioner is a dangerous person within the meaning of sec.2(c) of PASA Act. In view of the aforesaid the Special Civil Application is allowed and the order of detention dated 13th June 1996 is quashed and set aside. It is directed that the petitioner shall be released forthwith if he is not required in any other case. Rule is made absolute. -oOo- karim*
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: Application is allowed and the order of detention dated
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Constitution of India; Gujarat Prevention of Anti Social Activities Act, 1985 — ss. 1, 3; Indian Penal Code, 1860.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Gujarat High Court, on 13 Jun 1996. The bench was N N MATHUR.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.