A. P. RAVANI, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioner has been detained pursuant to order of detention dated 9/02/1989 passed by the detaining authority (Commissioner of Police Ahmedabad City) under the provisions of Sec. 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 inasmuch 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 be filing this petition he details of prohibition eases 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 the activity does not fall within the scope of bootlegging expression as defined under the provisions of PASA. The term bootlegger occurring in sec. 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 the activity does not fall within the scope of bootlegging expression as defined under the provisions of PASA. The term bootlegger occurring in sec. 2 (h) of PASA takes within its sweep storing manufacturing importing exporting selling or distributing any liquor intoxicating drug or other intoxicant in contravention of ally 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 Sec. 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 of 1986 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 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 of 1987 of Sabarmati Police Station. The case is still pending in the Court. In the facts of this case on the basis of this one 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 offense under Sec. 324 of I. P. Cod has resulted into composition. A copy of the order recording composition of criminal case has not been supplied to the petitioner detenu. It may be noted that criminal case registered at C:. R. No. 130 of 1987 for offense under Sec. 324 of I. P. Cod 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 to taken into consideration. the cases mentioned at Sr. Nos. 2 and 3 are under the provisions of these cases also cannot be taken into consideration. so far as cases mentioned at Sr. Nos. 4 5 6 7 and 8 are concerned they are all pertaining to non-cognizable complaints. Moreover all these cases are under the provisions of Secs. 323 504 and 506 of 1. 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 PASS. But the cases for causing simple hurt (Sec. 323) abusing a person (Sec. 524) or even intimidating another person (Sec. 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 Sec. 504 and 506 do not fall within Chapters it 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 Sec. 323 read with 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 bought anything more these offences would under create the problem of public order. It is true that in certain situation even one criminal offences may adversary affect the public life and may create problem of public order. It all depends upon the effect of the offence in question or even tempo of public life. the extent upto which in offence affects the even tempo of public life would determine as to whether public order would be disturbed or not or that offences in question create merely a law and order problem. It all depends upon the effect of the offence in question or even tempo of public life. the extent upto which in offence affects the even tempo of public life would determine as to whether public order would be disturbed or not or that offences in question create 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 Kiskore Saini reported in AIR 1988 SC 208 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 Secs. 323 and 504 of I. P. Code are non-cognizable cases instituted otherwise than on police report. Such incidents are matters of day-to-day occurrences. They are also insignificant that many people even do not take notice of the same. By no stretch of imagination such incidents without there being any thing 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 detaining authority stands vitiated. ( 5 ) IN above view of the matter the order of detention passed by the detaining authority 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. Rule made absolute. .