Amanulla Khan Kudeatalla Khan Pathan vs State Of Gujarat & Ors on 28 June, 1999
7. To appreciate the submissions of the learned AGP Mr.Rawal, it is pertinent to read the definitions of "Boot-legger" and "Dangerous Person" given under Section 2[b] and [c] of the PASA Act. At the same time, it is also required to read the provisions of Section 3[4] read with explanation. Looking to the detention order impugned in this petition, it is noticed that the same has been passed by the detaining authority branding the petitioner as "Bootlegger" and not as "Dangerous Person". But considering the entire scheme of the Act, either the bootlegger or the dangerous person whoever commits any offence or carrying out any activity which disturb the public tempo and peace of the society, then only, the detaining authority is entitled to pass appropriate order of detention under the PASA Act. Therefore, there is no dispute as to the powers of the detaining authority to pass the detention order against the bootlegger while keeping in mind the activities as "dangerous person". But looking to the facts of the present case, only one registered offence under Bombay Prohibition Act registered against the petitioner along with other two unregistered offence under IPC and as result thereof, the petitioner has been branded as the "Bootlegger". However, it is submission of the learned AGP Mr.Rawal that in a recent decision in case of DARPAN KUMAR SHARMA reported in [2003] 2 SCC 313 which has been relied by the learned advocate Ms.S.G.Patel, wherein the earlier decision of the Apex Court in case of A KHAN KUDEATALLA KHAN PATHAN V. STATE OF GUJARAT AND OTHERS reported in [1999] 5 SCC 613 has not been considered and therefore, especially relied on decision in case of A KHAN KUDEATALLA KHAN PATHAN V. STATE OF GUJARAT AND OTHERS. I may be noted that this Court has considered both the decisions of the Apex Court and the distinction in the facts of these two judgments and the facts of this case, is mainly "registered offence" against the detenu. As transpires from the facts of the case of A KHAN KUDEATALLA KHAN PATHAN, there was one solitary incident registered offence against the detenu. In the facts of the present case, there is only one registered offence recorded under the Bombay Prohibition Act, admittedly not under the IPC. On the other, the fact cannot be ignored that there are two unregistered offence which can attribute provisions of IPC, disclosed by the secret witnesses against the present petitioner. But it is pertinent to note that as such, no complaint is filed by the police authority against the petitioner.