PER PANDYA, J. ( 1 ) THE petition has been filed by the detenu under the provisions of Gujarat Prevention of anti-social Activities Act, 1985 (for short "pasa" ). The order came to be passed on 2 -. 5-1993 by the Police Commissioner of the city of Ahmedabad on the ground that the petitioner is a dangerous person as understood in clause (c) of Section 2 of PASA. A copy of the order is produced at Annexure A and copy of grounds in support thereof is produced at Annexure B page 8 onwards. ( 2 ) VARIOUS contentions have been raised, but of them, the one which, in our opinion, would go to the root of the matter pertains to entry No. 26 of 1993 of Shahpur Police Station in the City of Ahmedabad. This entry was made on 30-4-1993 under Cr. P. C. Section 151. The said section refers to the power of police Officers for detaining a person where he knows of a design to commit any cognizable offence then, the Police Officer may arrest, without orders from a Magistrate and without a warrant, the person so designing, if it appears to such Officer that the commission of the offence cannot be otherwise prevented. Of the material relied on by the detaining authority for passing the impugned order, there are two cases registered with Shahpur Police Station in the month of December 1992. First one is 220 of 1992 and second one is 1232/92 under various Sections of Indian Penal Code, as also terrorist and Disruptive Act, popularly known as TADA. ( 3 ) IN both the cases, the petitioner was released on bail and in the second case, condition was imposed on him that he shall not enter Shahpur Police Station area. He was found to have entered that area on 30/04/1993. As per the material supplied to the detenu, about a week or so prior thereto, the petitioner was found to have indulged into anti-social activities in the nature of forcibly taking articles without paying, extorting money, etc. This material is to be found in the statements of four witnesses recorded on 27-4-1993 and supplied to the detenu. ( 4 ) UNDER the circumstances, if on 30-4- 1993 the petitioner was found in Shahpur Police station area and if action under Section 151 cr. This material is to be found in the statements of four witnesses recorded on 27-4-1993 and supplied to the detenu. ( 4 ) UNDER the circumstances, if on 30-4- 1993 the petitioner was found in Shahpur Police station area and if action under Section 151 cr. P. C. was taken, one may agree with the respondent that the said action was eminently justified. ( 5 ) HOWEVER, what is vital for our purpose is that Entry No. 26 of 1993 referred to as "janva jog" which can be roughly translated as "entry which is required to be taken note of or "the incident which is required to be taken note of was made in the said police station under Section 151. This Entry having been made under the aforesaid Section, immediately, the detenu was arrested and arrest memo referred to as "chehra nishan Patrak" was prepared and proposal had already been forwarded on 29-4-1993 by a report dated 2-5-1993. This fact was further brought to the notice of the detaining authority. This prompt action on the part of the sponsoring authority is indeed commendable. ( 6 ) HOWEVER, in our opinion, what has been completely lost sight of is that the said Entry no. 26 of 1993 should also have been sent to the detaining authority. On the same line is the Supreme Court decision reported in 1990 (2) SCC 1 given in M. Ahmadkutta v. Union of India and Anr. No doubt, in the said case the question under consideration was, production of bail application and bail order before the detaining authority and supplying copy thereof to the detenu. The Supreme Court in no uncertain terms has held that bail applications and the order would form vital materials required to be considered by the detaining authority while formulating the opinion as to whether power under Section 3 of PASA should be exercised or not. ( 7 ) ON the same line we feel that Entry No. 26 of 1993 would form a vital document. This has been specifically averred to in para 8 of the petition and no doubt, it was replied to by the detaining authority by affidavit-in-reply at page 13. The stand taken by the detaining authority in the affidavit-in-reply is to the effect that copy of the said report dated 2-5-1993 has been given, alongwith that, the said arrest memo has also been given. The stand taken by the detaining authority in the affidavit-in-reply is to the effect that copy of the said report dated 2-5-1993 has been given, alongwith that, the said arrest memo has also been given. There is a specific mention of Entry No. 26 of 1993 in the report dated 2-5-1993 and hence, the detaining authority feels that the requirements are satisfied. It has been further contended in the affidavit-in-reply para 8 that under the circumstances it will not be correct for the detenu to say that his right of making effective representation under Article 20 of the constitution of India is in any manner jeopardised. We are going a step further. We are of the opinion that like FIR of a cognizable offence resulting into arrest, if arrest of the accused is made, thereafter, it forms part of the material resulting into detention order. On the same line, Entry No. 26 of 1993 having resulted into arrest and having been considered by virtue of that report dated 2-5-1993, like any other FIR of congnizable offence, Entry no. 26 would also form a vital material required to be produced before the detaining authority and thereafter, being considered by him and a copy thereof, of course, is required to be supplied to the detenu. ( 8 ) IN the instant case, neither Entry No. 26 /93 is produced before the detaining authority, nor copy thereof is supplied. Obviously, the copy could not have been supplied, because entry No. 26/93 itself is not produced before the detaining authority. ( 9 ) FOLLOWING the said Supreme Court judgment, therefore, we hold that vital material which ought to have gone into the consideration of formation of the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority for passing an order under PASA, not having been produced before him, the impugned order is vitiated. We have, therefore, no hesitation in allowing the petition by setting aside the said order. Accordingly, the petition is allowed. The petitioner-detenu is ordered to be set at liberty forthwith, if not required for any other purpose. Rule made absolute, D. S. permitted. Rule made absolute. .