A.P. Ravani, J.
1. The petitioner has been detained pursuant to order of detention dated February 9, 1989 passed by the detaining authority (Commissioner of Police, Ahmedabad City) under the provisions of Section 3(2) of the Gujarat Prevention of Anti-Social Activities Act, 1985 (for short 'PASA').
2. It is alleged in the grounds of detention supplied to the petitioner detenu that in Keshavnagar Sabarmati area of Ahmedabad city, the petitioner was storing country liquor and selling the same amongst the members of the public and was thereby indulging in bootlegging activity as defined under the provisions of PASA. The details of cases registered against the petitioner-detenu have been mentioned in the grounds of detention. It is also alleged in the grounds of detention that the petitioner was a 'dangerous person' in as much as he habitually indulged in offences mentioned in Chapters 16 and 17 of Indian Penal Code and his activity as such bootlegger and dangerous person was prejudicial to the maintenance of public order and hence he was required to be detained. In the grounds of detention, details as regards the criminal cases filed against him and certain incidents which took place with individual witnesses have also been mentioned. On the basis of the material placed before him, the detaining authority was satisfied that it was necessary to pass the order of preventive detention against the petitioner so as to prevent him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. Hence the order of detention.
3. The petitioner has challenged the legality and validity of the order of detention by filing this petition. The details of prohibition cases registered against the petitioner under the provisions of Bombay Prohibition Act, 1949, show that in all ten cases have been registered against him. Out of these ten cases, eight cases are for consumption of prohibited liquor. Only two cases are pertaining to possession and sale of liquor. As far as the consumption of prohibited liquor is concerned, that activity does not fall within the scope of expression bootlegging as defined under the provisions of PASA. The term 'bootlegger' occurring in Section 2(b) of PASA takes within its sweep storing, manufacturing, transporting, importing, exporting, selling or distributing any liquor, intoxicating drug or other intoxicant in contravention of any provision of the Bombay Prohibition Act, 1949. It does not take within its sweep consumption of any of these substances. Therefore, eight cases registered against the petitioner under the provisions of Section 85(1)(3) of the Bombay Prohibition Act, 1949 on the allegation that the petitioner was found drunk in public place could not have been relied upon by the detaining authority. As far as one of the cases for possession of prohibited liquor is concerned (case registered at C.R. No. 749/86 of Sabarmati Police Station) the same has not been proved against the petitioner. It is an admitted position that a copy of the judgment and order passed by the Criminal Court in this case, has not been supplied to the petitioner. Therefore, this case also cannot be taken into consideration. Thus, there is is only one case which may be said to be pertaining to bootlegging activity of the petitioner-detenu. This case is mentioned at Sr. No. 7 in the grounds of detention and it is registered at C.R.No. 854/87 of Sabarmati Police Station. The case is still pending in the court. On the basis of this case alone, it cannot be said that the petitioner is indulging in bootlegging activity. Hence the satisfaction arrived at by the detaining authority as regards the petitioner being a bootlegger stands vitiated on the ground that irrelevant cases have been taken into consideration.
4. The allegation that the petitioner is a 'dangerous person' as defined under PASA may be examined. It may be noted that criminal case registered at C.R.No. 130 of 1987 for offence under Section 324 of I.P. Code has resulted into composition. A copy of the order recording composition of criminal case has not been supplied to the petitioner-detenu. Therefore, this case could not be taken into consideration. The cases mentioned at Sr.Nos. 2 & 3 are under the provisions of Bombay Police Act, 1951 and these cases do not fall within the definition of 'dangerous person' as defined under PASA. Therefore, these cases also cannot be taken into consideration. So far as cases mentioned at Sr. Nos. 4, 5, 6, 7 & 8 are concerned, they are all pertaining to non-cognizable complaints. Moreover all these cases are under the provisions of Sections 323, 504 and 506 of I.P. Code. Again it may be noted that offences falling under Chapters 16 and 17 of I.P. Code can be taken into consideration for deciding as to whether anyone is a 'dangerous person' within the meaning of definition given in PASA. But the cases for causing simple hurt (Section 323), abusing a person (Section 524) or even intimidating another person (Section 506) would at the most create law and order problem. Such offences ordinarily would not create the problem of public order. Be it noted that offences under Sections 504 and 506 do not fall within Chapters 16 and 17 of I.P. Code, but they form part of Chapter 22 of I.P. Code. But it may be argued that since the cases registered against the petitioner are for offences under Section 323 read with Sections 504 and 506 of I.P. Code, the same may be taken into consideration. Even if this argument is accepted these offences by their very nature are so trivial that without there being anything more, these offences would never create the problem of public order. It is true that in certain situations even one criminal offence may adversely affect the public life and may create problem of public order. It all depends upon the effect the offence in question or even tempo of public life. The extent up to which an offence affects the even tempo of public life would determine as to whether public order would be disturbed or not, or that offence in question creates merely a law and order problem. In this connection, reference may be made to a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of State of U.P. v. Kamal Kishore Saini reported in AIR 1988 SC 208 : (1988 Cri LJ 405). In para 12 of the judgment, the Supreme Court has observed to the following effect:--
'......whether an act relates to law and order or to public order depends upon the effect of the act on the life of the community or in other words the reach and effect and potentiality of the act if so put as to disturb or dislocate the even tempo of the life of the community, it will be an act which will affect public order.'
In the instant case, the alleged offences committed by the petitioner are individual in nature and they are distinguished from public crimes. At any rate these crimes do not affect the public at large. The incidents of alleged offences under Sections 323 and 504 of I.P. Code are noncognizable cases instituted otherwise than on police report. Such incidents are matters of day-to-day occurrences. They are so insignificant that many people even do not take notice of the same. By no stretch of imagination such incidents, without there being anything more, can be said to be affecting the public order. In this view of the matter, the petitioner cannot be said to be a 'dangerous person' as defined under the provisions of PASA. Therefore, on this count also, the satisfaction arrived at by the detaining authority stands vitiated.
5. In above view of the matter, the order of detention passed by the detaining authority and produced at Annexure 'A' to the petition is required to be quashed and set aside.
6. In the result, the petition is allowed. The order of detention passed against the petitioner produced at annexure 'A' to the petition is hereby quashed and set aside. Petitioner is ordered to be released forthwith if not required in any other case. Rule made absolute accordingly.