Rajubhai Ranchhodbhai Soni vs State of Gujarat

@

S.G. Shah, J.—Rule. Learned AGP waives service of notice of rule on behalf of respondent-State.

Petitioner has prayed to restrain the respondents from detaining him under PASA disclosing that he was wrongly involved in the offence of prohibition, for which, he was shown as absconder in FIR registered against him at Chowkbazar Police Station, Surat being C.R. No. III-595 of 2014 on 26.05.2014. It is further contended that this is a solitary offence registered against him and though police has wrongly involved him and he was released on bail by the competent Court on 30/05/2014 and that when no liquor is found from him and when he was joined as an accused only on say of the co-accused from whom, the liquor was found, that liquor is provided to him by the petitioner, he cannot be detained.

Other-side has submitted the proposal of the detention of the petitioner with relevant compilation which confirms that respondents have considered the relevant information including eight offences against the petitioner amongst which, for some of the offences petitioner was detained in PASA also.

So far as definition of "bootlegger" under the Act is concerned, it is not required that person has to be habitual offender to term him as bootlegger. The definition of bootlegger under Section 2(b) reads as under:

"bootlegger" means a person who distills, manufactures, stores, transports, imports, exports, sells or distributes any liquor, intoxication drug or other intoxicant in contravention of any provision of the Bombay Prohibition Act, 1949 and the rules and orders made thereunder, or of any other law for the time being in force or who knowingly expends or applies any money or supplies any animal, vehicle, vessel of other conveyance or any receptacle or any other material whatsoever in furtherance or support of the doing of any of the things described above by or through any other person, or who abets in any other manner the doing of any such thing;

4.1 Therefore, so far as bootlegger is concerned, he could be detained even for single offence. Therefore, there is no substance in the petition when it is prayed that as there is solitary offence against the petitioner he could not be detained.

So far as merits of the order of detention is concerned, when detaining authority has relied upon several previous offences, non discloser of such offences by the petitioner should be dealt with strictly, because though specific material is available with him, he has pleaded that there is solitary offence registered against him. Therefore petition deserves to be dismissed on that sole ground also.

Even if we do not dismiss the petition on such sole ground of non-discloser of material fact, the fact remains that subjective satisfaction arrived at by the competent authority cannot be quashed at such stage of pre-detention petition because, the fact remains that there may be additional material before the competent authority before arriving at subjective satisfaction and therefore right of the competent authority to collect the material for arriving at subjective satisfaction cannot be curtailed by allowing such petition at such pre-detention stage only because petitioner pleads that there cannot be detention for solitary offence.

I am relying upon following decisions:

1) Subhash Popatlal Dave vs. State of Maharashtra in Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 137 of 2011.

2) Additional Secretary to the Additional Secretary to the Government of India and Others Vs. Smt. Alka Subhash Gadia and Another, ;

3) Hare Ram Pandey Vs. State of Bihar and Others, ;

4) Union of India (UOI) Vs. Amrit Lal Manchanda and Another, ;

5) Union of India and Others Vs. Parasmal Rampuria, ;

6) State of Tamil Nadu Vs. P.K. Shamsudeen, ;

7) Navalshankar Ishwarlal Dave and another Vs. State of Gujarat and others, ;

8) Union of India (UOI) and Others Vs. Muneesh Suneja, ;

9) Union of India (UOI) and Another Vs. Shrimati Chaya Ghoshal and Another, ;

10) Naresh Kumar Goyal Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Others, ;

11) State of Maharashtra and Others Vs. Bhaurao Punjabrao Gawande, ;

12) Dropti Devi and Another Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Others, ;

13) M.S. Meena Vs. State of Gujarat reported in 2013(3) GLR 1968 : 2013 (3) GLH 128.

As against that, petitioner has relied upon the sole case of Dipak Bajaj vs. State of Maharashtra reported in 2011(1) GLH 140. With due respect such judgment cannot be relied upon now when there is latest judgment by larger bench in the case of Subhash Popatlal Dave.

In view of such facts and circumstances, I do not see any substance in the petition. Hence, the petition is dismissed. Rule is discharged.