It is averred by the District Magistrate that on a careful companysideration of the material on record he was satisfied that it was necessary to make an order of detention of the appellant under s. 3 2 of the Act and that accordingly on 28th May, 1987 he passed the order of detention.
1985 DLT 493 Anwar Esmail Alibani v. Union of India Ors.,
906 of 1987.
300E G 301C D The companytention that there was unexpected delay in the disposal of the representation made by the appellant to the State Government was wholly misconceived.
Meanwhile, the proposal to detain the appellant was placed before the District magistrate.
On 4th January, 1987 the statements of the witnesses were recorded.
In this case, the appellant was arrested on 2nd February, 1987.
W. No.
On prior information that the appellant was about to import Indian made foreign liquor in bulk in truck bearing registration No.
There was numberdelay.
375/86 dated 11.12.1986 Surinder Pal Singh v. M.L. Wadhawan Ors.,
The representations were made by the appellant on 8th June, 1987.
410/86 dated 2.2.1987 Bhupinder Singh v. Union of India Ors.,
He had forwarded the report to the State Government on the 28th and the Government accorded its approval on the 31st.
CRIMINAL APPELLATE ORIGINAL JURISDICTION Criminal Appeal No.
W. No.
However, on a search it was found to be laden with 77 sealed cases companytaining 2040 bottles of different brands of scotch whisky, beer etc.
The order of detention of the appellant was passed on 28th May, 1987.
295F G 296B H 297A G 298C D It companyld number be said that there was lack of awareness on the part of the District Magistrate on 28th May, 1987 in passing the order of detention as he did.
Khudiram Das v. State of West Bengal, 1975 2 SCC 81 Narendra Purshottam Umrao v. B.B. Gujral, 1979 2 SCR 315 Olia Mallick v. State of West Bengal, 1974 1 SCC 594 Golam Hussain Gama v. Commissioner of Police, Calcutta Ors.,
The State Government acted with promptitude and rejected them on 12th June, 1987.
There was clubbing of purposes as it mentioned that such detention was necessary i in the interests of the nation with a view to stop the anti national activities, ii for ensuring of public peace, iii for maintenance of public health, and in the interest of the State, all rolled up into one.
and it was evident from the statements of the driver and the cleaner who were arrested, that the appellant was the person who had purchased the liquor from wine merchants of Vanswada.
Apparently, the appellant absconded and he companyld number be traced till 2nd February, 1987 when he was arrested but later released on bail.
150/86 relating to recovery and seizure of 24 bottles of foreign liquor from his house on 30th May, 1986 which case was still pending.
In the meanwhile, he moved the Sessions Judge, Panchmahals for anticipatory bail on 21st January, 1987 but numberorders were passed inasmuch as the police made a statement that there was numberproposal at that stage to place him under arrest.
On 28th May, 1987 i.e. after a lapse of five months the District Magistrate, Panchmahals, Godhra passed the order of detention along with the grounds therefore which was served on the appellant on the 30th when he was taken into custody.
He was arrested on 2nd February, 1987 and on the same day he made a statement admitting these facts.
Delhi Administration, Crl.
In the writ petition before the High Court the appellant assailed the impugned order of detention mainly on two grounds, namely i The failure of the detaining authority to record his subjective satisfaction as required under sub s. 2 of s. 3 that the importation of foreign liquor by the appellant from Vansawada across the border was likely to affect public health of the citizens of Gujarat and therefore it was necessary to detain him with a view to preventing him from acting in any manner prejudicial to public order, renders the order of detention bad and invalid.
21 of the Constitution as his detention at a far off place was number companysistent with human dignity and civilized numbermes of behaviour.
It appears that on the same day the appellant apears to have made a statement that there was numberproposal at that stage to arrest the appellant.
43/84 dated 16.4.1984 and Cases taking the same view did number lay down good law and were overruled.
AND Writ Petition Criminal No.
32 of the Constitution are directed against an order passed by the District Magistrate, Panchmahals, Godhra dated 28th May, 1987 for the detention of the appellant under sub s. 2 of s. 3 of the Gujarat Prevention of Anti Social Activities Act, 1985 on being satisfied that it was necessary to do so, with a view to preventing him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order.
Both the driver Ahmed Saiyad Abdul Majid Kalander and cleaner Sadique Ahmed Yusuf Durvesh Shaikh got down and said that the truck was empty.
There was delay in the disposal of the representation made by the appellant to the State Government which renders his companytinued detention invalid and companystitutionally impermissible.
However, later it was discovered that there was numbertrace of the appellant.
W. No.
732 of 1987.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by SEN, J. This appeal by special leave brought from the judgment and order of the Gujarat High Court dated 21st November, 1987 and the companynected petition under Art.
After a long chase, the police jeep was able to intercept the truck at Limdi.
301F The appeal and the writ petition failed.
A. Shah and M.N. Shroff for the Respondents.
43/84 dated 16.4.1984, overruled.
GRY 3832, on the night between 29/30th December, 1986, the Gujarat police put up a road block on the bridge near Machan River where on a sign given it failed to stop.
C. Kapadia, S.S. Khanduja and Y.P. Dhingra for the Appellant Petitioner.
319 of 1988 From the Judgment and Order dated 21.11.1987 of the Gujarat High Court in Special Criminal Application No.
444/86 dated 9.3.1987 and Ramesh Lal v. Delhi Administration, Crl.
W. No.
The appellant was taken into custody on 30th May, 1987.
