NANAVATI, J. ( 1 ) ). Because of the careless and callous manner in which the detention order came to be passed against the petitioner, the same will have to be quashed and this petition will have to be allowed. ( 2 ) ). The District Magistrate, Kheda, passed an order on 14-9-1989 for detention of the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner is a bootlegger and a headstrong person and his activities have resulted in creating an atmosphere of fear and terror and feeling of insecurity. In the ground of detention, 17 Criminal cases which came to be registered against the petitioner are mentioned and it is stated that on careful scrutiny of those complaints, it clearly appears that the petitioner is bootlegger. Thereafter, 10 statements recorded by the police are referred to, which show that the petitioner is carrying on the bootlegger activity and in order to carry on that activity, he has indulged in the acts of violenece also and that has resulted in creation of an atmosphere of terror and fear and feeling of insecurity. ( 3 ) ). The learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the order of detention has been passed by the District Magistrate without application of mind. It is also submitted that out of the 17 cases mentioned by the detaining authority, the petitioner was acquiring in as many as 10 cases. First Information Reports of the 3 cases did not disclose at all that the petitioner is a bootlegger. It is now well settled that if a person is acquitted of an offence by a competent criminal Court, then that case cannot be made a ground for his detention, unless the detaining authority finds that the acquittal was a result of some technical flow or because the witnesses did not come forward to support the prosecution or that the witnesses were won over by the accused. If after considering the order of acquittal passed by the competent Criminal Court, the detaining authority finds some justification for relying upon the incident and makes it a ground of detention, then that can be said to be quite proper. If after considering the order of acquittal passed by the competent Criminal Court, the detaining authority finds some justification for relying upon the incident and makes it a ground of detention, then that can be said to be quite proper. But it is not permissible to rely upon such a case without seeing the decision of the Court and coming to the conclusion that the accused in that case was acquittal because of some technical point or that witnesses had not come forward to support the prosecution because of the fear of the accused or that the witnesses were won-over by him. ( 4 ) ). In this case, inspite of the acquittal in so many cases, the detaining authority ignoring those acquittals has relied upon said cases for the purpose of coming to the conclusion that the petitioner is a bootlegger. That becomes clear from the first sentence which appears after the table of cases contained in the ground. The detaining authority in terms has stated that "on considering the F. I. Rs. of the aforesaid offences, it appears that you are a bootlegger and that you are doing business in illicit country liquor". In view of this categorical statement made in the grounds, it is not possible to accept the explanation given by the learned Addl. P. P. that the said cases were mentioned only as a bio-data of the detenu and not as grounds for detention. The detaining authority without coming to the conclusion that the petitioner is a bootlegger, could not have applied the provisions of the Act; and in order to come to the conclusion that the petitioner is a bootlegger, he has relied upon. F. I. Rs. of all the 17 cases. Even when the petitioner was acquitted in 10 cases, the detaining authority relied upon them and that shows non-application of mind on his part. ( 5 ) ). There is one other circumstances which also shows that the detaining authority had arrived at the requisite satisfaction without application of mind and in a very callous manner. Criminal Cases mentioned at Sr. Nos. 14, 15 and 17 were all in respect of offences under Indian Penal Code. As conceded by the learned Addl. P. P. himself, the F. I. Rs. Criminal Cases mentioned at Sr. Nos. 14, 15 and 17 were all in respect of offences under Indian Penal Code. As conceded by the learned Addl. P. P. himself, the F. I. Rs. of those cases do not disclose that the petitioner is a bootlegger and yet the detaining authority has stated in the grounds that F. I. Rs. of those cases also disclose that petitioner is a bootlegger. ( 6 ) ). It, therefore, clearly appears to us that the detaining authority, in this case, has passed the order in a mechanical and in s callous manner without considering the material which was placed before him. If he had cared to go through the material placed before him, he would not have committed such a mistake. On this ground alone, the order of detention is quashed. ( 7 ) ). In the result, the petition is allowed. The impugned order of detention is quashed and set aside. The petitioner is ordered to be released forthwith, unless his presence in the Jail is required in connection with some other cases. Rule is made absolute accordingly with no order as to costs. .