IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No 10383 of 1999 For Approval and Signature: Hon'ble MISS JUSTICE R.M.DOSHIT ============================================================ 1. Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed : NO to see the judgements? 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? : NO 3. Whether Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy : NO of the judgement? 4. Whether this case involves a substantial question : NO of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution of India, 1950 of any Order made thereunder? 5. Whether it is to be circulated to the Civil Judge? : NO -------------------------------------------------------------- GALUBHAI VAGHAJIBHAI VAGHARI @ TALPADA Versus STATE OF GUJARAT -------------------------------------------------------------- Appearance: MR HR PRAJAPATI for Petitioner MR ND GOHIL AGP for Respondent No. 1, 2, 3 -------------------------------------------------------------- CORAM : MISS JUSTICE R.M.DOSHIT Date of decision: 10/03/2000 ORAL JUDGEMENT Heard the learned advocates. The petitioner challenges the order of preventive detention dated 24th August, 1999, made against him by the District Magistrate, Nadiad, , under the powers conferred upon him under section 3 (2) of the Gujarat Prevention of Anti Social Activities Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). It appears that as many as six prohibition offences have been registered against the petitioner and were pending trial. In each of the said cases, a large quantity of country liquor was recovered from the possession of the petitioner. The petitioner is, therefore, held to be a 'bootlegger' within the meaning of section 2 (b) of the Act, and his activities are found to be prejudicial to the maintenance of public order within the meaning of section 3 (4) of the Act and the explanation thereto. Besides, some four persons, on assurance of anonymity, have given statements in respect of the activities of the petitioner which are detrimental to the public tranquility and the even tempo of life. The petitioner's activities are, therefore, also held to be prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. Amongst other grounds, it is contended that though the material recovered from the petitioner is alleged to be country liquor, the petitioner has not been supplied the reports of the Chemical Analyser in any of the aforesaid six offences. In the said cases, though the chargesheet has been filed, along with the charge papers, the petitioner has not been given the FSL reports. The petitioner had, therefore, under his application dated 30th November, 1999, demanded such reports. The application has been rejected on 20th December, 1999 and the petitioner has not been furnished the reports of the Chemical Analyser. It is submitted that the reports of the Chemical Analyser are vital documents so as to enable the detenu to make an effective representation. Whether the Detaining Authority relies upon it or not, the detenu is entitled to receive such reports. The contention is contested. It is submitted that at the relevant time the reports of the Chemical Analyser were still not available and the Detaining Authority could not have supplied the said documents to the petitioner. Be it noted that the Detaining Authority has not filed the counter-affidavit and the facts have not been stated on oath. Besides, even if that were so, the Detaining Authority could have replied the application dated 30th November, 1999 accordingly. In absence of the assertions made on oath, the oral statement can not be relied upon. It is a settled proposition of law that the report of the Chemical Analyser in a prohibition case is a vital document and is required to be supplied to the detenu, if available. There is one more infirmity which is found in the present case. The application for release on bail made in respect of the CR No. 413/97 registered on 25th March, 1997, has not been supplied to the petitioner. The said document being vital, ought to have been supplied to the petitioner along with the order of detention and the grounds thereof. I am, therefore, constrained to hold that the impugned order is vitiated on account of non-supply of relevant materials. Petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 24th August, 1999 is quashed and set aside. The petitioner, unless is required to be detained in some other case, be released forthwith. Rule is made absolute accordingly. There shall be no order as to costs. ... JOSHI