P. D. DESAI, J. ( 1 ) BY an order made on 5/07/1981 the first respondent (Commissioner of Police Ahmedabad City) in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-sec. (2) read with sub-sec. (3) of sec. 3 of the National Security Act 1980 ordered the detention of the petitioner on being satisfied that it was necessary to do so with a view to preventing the petitioner from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order in the area of Ahmedabad city. The petitioner was duly detained pursuant to the said order. The grounds of detention of even date were thereafter served upon him together with the relevant documents. The petitioner instituted the present petition on 19/09/1981 The petition reached preliminary hearing on 21/09/1981 when Rule was ordered to issue returnable on 5/10/1981 The petition reached final hearing today and it is being disposed of by this judgment. ( 2 ) THE order of detention has been challenged on the following five grounds: (1) Para. 1 of the grounds supplied to the petitioner refers to and relies upon two cases of offences under the Prohibition Act in respect of which the petitioner was tried and acquitted; the detaining authority could not have validly taken into consideration those cases and he could not have been reasonably satisfied about the proclivity of the petitioner on the basis of incidents in respect of which a Court of law has found the petitioner not guilty. (2) Copies of documents referred to and relied upon in para. 1 of the grounds supplied to the petitioner have not been furnished to the petitioner; especially the copies of judgments where under the petitioner was either convicted or acquitted have not been supplied; the result is that the petitioner was denied a reasonable opportunity of making a representation. ( 3 ) IN our opinion the petitioner is entitled to succeed on grounds (1) and (2) set out above. It is therefore not necessary to pronounce upon the validity or otherwise of the remaining grounds. ( 4 ) ON a fair reading of the material parts of the grounds supplied to the petitioner there is no manner of doubt that the order of detention is based on the various facts and circumstances referred to in para. I and on the incident referred to in para. 2 of the extracted portion. ( 4 ) ON a fair reading of the material parts of the grounds supplied to the petitioner there is no manner of doubt that the order of detention is based on the various facts and circumstances referred to in para. I and on the incident referred to in para. 2 of the extracted portion. In other words the petitioners involvement in several cases his prosecution in a large number of those cases and such prosecutions resulting either in his conviction acquittal or compromise were amongst the facts which weighed with the detaining authority in passing the detention order and they were amongst the materials which the detaining authority took into consideration in arriving at the requisite satisfaction. An attempt was made before us on behalf of the detaining authority to characterise the facts and circumstances referred to in para. 1 as the background material which was relevant only for the purpose of evaluating the image of the petitioner in the public mind and on that basis to isolate or separate them from the real ground of detention which according to the detaining authority was contained in the two succeeding paragraphs. On that basis it was urged on behalf of the detaining authority that even if there was any vice in para. 1 the order of detention would not be affected. We are unable to agree. As pointed out earlier paragraphs 1 and 2 of the extracted portion are not separable from each other and in any case the contents of both the paragraphs have weighed with the detaining authority in arriving at the requisite satisfaction Under the circumstances the vice if any in aay one of the two paragraphs or both the paragraphs as the case may be would vitiate the detention order. Indeed as held in Mohd. Yusuf v. State of Jammu and Kashmir A. I. R. 1979 S. C. 1925 at page 1932 no distinction can be made between introductory facts background facts and grounds as such so far as the material on which an order of detention is passed is concerned. All allegation of fact which have led to the passing of the order of detention are grounds of detention. If such allegations or any of them are shown to suffer from any vice such as irrelevance vagueness non-existence and non-application of mind the detenu will be entitled to be released. All allegation of fact which have led to the passing of the order of detention are grounds of detention. If such allegations or any of them are shown to suffer from any vice such as irrelevance vagueness non-existence and non-application of mind the detenu will be entitled to be released. ( 5 ) AGAINST the aforesaid background let us examine the two-fold challenge levelled by the petitioner. Amongst the incidents/events taken into consideration by the detaining authority are two offences under the Prohibition Act in respect of which the petitioner was prosecuted and acquitted. The question is whether the detaining authority could have relied upon those incidents/events without anything more. ( 6 ) AGAINST the aforesaid background the question is whether the detention is legal and valid. Having regard to the view taken in the decision in Special Criminal Application No. 389 of 1981 (Mer Malda Karna v. Dist. Mag Junagadh and Ors. 22 G. L. R.) before relying upon the cases in which the petitioner was acquitted the detaining authority was required to consider whether any one or more of the circumstances alluded to in the said decision were present in the instant case. We find however that far from ascertaining whether such circumstances or any of them existed in the instant case the detaining authority admits that he has not even looked at the judgments which resulted in the acquittal and that he interalia considered the first information reports in those cases and found the version given in those reports to be reliable and on that basis he reached the requisite satisfaction. This indeed was totally impermissible because the possibility cannot be ruled out that in these cases the Court might have acquitted the petitioner having found that the cases were false and under those circumstances the detaining authority could not have been reasonably satisfied about the prejudicial activities based on allegations which the Court has found to be baseless. This infirmity which in our opinion is fatal vitiates the order of detention. ( 7 ) THE second challenge is really consequential to the first challenge. We have held earlier that the fact that the petitioner was prosecuted and acquitted in certain cases was present to the mind of the detaining authority and that those incidents have still been relied upon to judge the proclivity of the petitioner. ( 7 ) THE second challenge is really consequential to the first challenge. We have held earlier that the fact that the petitioner was prosecuted and acquitted in certain cases was present to the mind of the detaining authority and that those incidents have still been relied upon to judge the proclivity of the petitioner. The incidents which resulted in the petitioners prosecution and conviction have also been relied upon. Under the circumstances all the relevant material in that behalf which was before the detaining authority was required to be supplied to the petitioner. It was not sufficient merely to supply copies of the first information reports regarding those cases. Copies of the further material showing that the petitioner was prosecuted and convicted or acquitted in the respective cases which must have been before the detaining authority was also required to be communicated to the petitioner. It is true that the petitioner himself was involved in those cases and ordinarily those facts would be within his personal knowledge. However in order to enable the petitioner to make an effective representation from jail while he is under actual detention especially in the context of the circumstance that what was sought to be relied upon against him were cases which resulted in his acquittal it was essential to supply to the petitioner copies at least of the judgments in cases which resulted in his acquittal. We express no opinion in this case on the question whether or not copies of the judgments in cases where he was convicted were required to be supplied. However we are clearly of the view that at least copies of the judgments whereunder he was acquitted ought to have been supplied to the petitioner. Supply of copies of those judgments would enable him to make a representation on the point whether inspite of such acquittal the detaining authority was justified in relying upon the incidents which resulted in the prosecution and ultimate acquittal. Since copies of those judgments were not supplied yet another infirmity is introduced in the order of detention. ( 8 ) IT is true that in the instant case the detaining authority himself did not have before him copies of the judgment when the detention order was made and on that ground alone the order must fail for the reasons stated hereinabove. ( 8 ) IT is true that in the instant case the detaining authority himself did not have before him copies of the judgment when the detention order was made and on that ground alone the order must fail for the reasons stated hereinabove. Still however having regard to the fact that the circumstance of prosecution and acquittal was referred to and relied upon in the grounds may be on the basis of some other material such as an entry in his history sheet or the like it was imperative to supply to the petitioner nst only copies of such material but also copies of the judgments resulting in his acquittal. In absence of such material there was no effective opportunity of representation 12 For the foregoing reasons we are of the opinion that the order of detention passed against the petitioner is vitiated and that his detention is illegal. Under the circumstances the petitioner is directed to be released forthwith so far as the present case is concerned. Rule made absolute in terms aforesaid. .