JUDGMENT : J.B. PARDIWALA, J. 1. This appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent is at the instance of an unsuccessful writ applicant (detenue) of a writ application and is directed against the judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court dated 21st August, 2020 in the Special Civil Application No.8321 of 2020 whereby the learned Single Judge rejected the writ application affirming the order of detention passed by the Detaining Authority dated 28th April, 2020 under the provisions of the Gujarat Prevention of Anti-Social Activities Act, 1985 (for short “the Act, 1985”). 2. It appears from the materials on record that the appellant came to be preventively detained as a “dangerous person” as defined under Section 2(C) of the Act, 1985 vide the order of detention dated 28th April, 2020 passed by the District Magistrate, Jamnagar in exercise of his powers under Section 3(2) of the Act, 1985. 3. The Detaining Authority, in the grounds of detention, has relied upon ten criminal cases registered against the appellant and the statements of two witnesses recorded in Camera, whose identity has not been disclosed by exercising privilege under Section 9(2) of the Act in public interest. 4. The Detaining Authority, relying upon the aforesaid materials, arrived at the subjective satisfaction that the activities of the appellant are prejudicial to the maintenance of public order as the appellant could be termed as the dangerous person as defined under the Act, 1985. 5. The appellant, being dissatisfied with the order of preventive detention, challenged the same by filing the Special Civil Application No.8321 of 2020. A learned Single Judge of this Court heard the writ application and vide judgment and order dated 21st August, 2020, rejected the same. The learned Single Judge, while rejecting the writ application, held as under: “4. While the learned AGP appearing for the State has drawn my attention towards detention order, wherein it is stated that in the report itself it is stated that ten offence are registered against the present petitioner and he has repeated similar types of offence and the cases are registered since 2017 to 2020. While the learned AGP appearing for the State has drawn my attention towards detention order, wherein it is stated that in the report itself it is stated that ten offence are registered against the present petitioner and he has repeated similar types of offence and the cases are registered since 2017 to 2020. It is contended by the learned AGP that even after registration of last offence, there are statements of witnesses wherein it is stated that the petitioner had asked for motorcycle from one of the witnesses and when he had denied to lend the motorcycle, the present petitioner had assaulted him with knife and there was affray and public peace was disturbed. The witness was so much afraid that he had not dared to file any complaint against the present petitioner. While as per the statement of other witness, when he was returning after purchasing grocery, the present petitioner had demanded Rs.100 from the witness and when the witness refused to part with the money, the petitioner had assaulted him with a knife and thus public peace was disturbed and there was atmosphere of fear in the public place. The learned AGP has contended that all the offences are committed in public place and due to his conduct crowd had gathered and public peace was disturbed. 5. The contention is raised about non-application of mind on the part of the detaining authority to the extent that registration of ten offences and that too the petitioner is acquitted in some of the offences, cannot result into breach of public order and case of breach of law and order can be dealt with by taking recourse to ordinary course of law. 6. Thus, from the order of the detention, it reveals that the petitioner has used lethal weapon by administering threat to the complainant and witnesses at public place and in view of detaining authority it has resulted not only into breach of law and order but also public order and, therefore, detaining authority by applying its mind arrived at subjective satisfaction, cannot be said to have been vitiated. Further, the detention of a person is not to punish him but to prevent him from doing so in future. Further, the detention of a person is not to punish him but to prevent him from doing so in future. The basis of detention is the substantial of the execution of the reasonable probability to a likelyhood of a detenue acting in a similar manner by his act and preventing him by detaining from doing the same. The power of preventive detention is precautionary power exercised in reasonable anticipation. It may or may not relate to offence. It is not parallel proceedings. There is a very thin line between question of law and order situation and a public order situation and some time, the acts of a person relating to law and order situation turn into the situation of a public order situation. The conduct of collecting ransom amount and not paying fair to the auto-rickshaw driver clearly shows the activity of the person likely to disturb the public order and peace. If such person moves freely in society, no one can live with peace.” 6. Being dissatisfied with the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge, the appellant (detenue) is here before this Court with the present appeal. 7. Mr. Nisarg Shah, the learned counsel appearing with Mr. Mohsinkhan A. Koreja for the appellant vehemently submitted that the learned Single Judge committed a serious error in rejecting the writ application. Mr. Shah would argue that there is complete non-application of mind on the part of the Detaining Authority inasmuch as out of ten cases relied upon, in four cases, the appellant had already been acquitted by the Trial Court. Mr. Shah would argue that although in the first four cases, the appellant has already been acquitted, yet in the grounds of detention, those first four cases have been shown as pending trial. According to Mr. Shah, it necessarily implies that the sponsoring authority did not place the correct information and the materials before the Detaining Authority. According to Mr. Shah, if such fact would have been brought to the notice of the Detaining Authority, then probably, it might have influenced the mind of the Detaining Authority one way or the other on the question whether or not to make the detention order. Mr. According to Mr. Shah, if such fact would have been brought to the notice of the Detaining Authority, then probably, it might have influenced the mind of the Detaining Authority one way or the other on the question whether or not to make the detention order. Mr. Shah would submit that even otherwise, the materials relied upon by the Detaining Authority is not sufficient to arrive at the subjective satisfaction that the detenue is a 'dangerous person' and his activities are prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. Mr. Shah would argue that mere registration of cases of IPC offences and recording of in camera statements of the witnesses is not sufficient to brand a person as a 'dangerous person' as defined under Section 2(C) of the Act, 1985. 8. In such circumstances, referred to above, Mr. Shah prays that there being merit in his appeal, the same may be allowed and the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge be set aside. Mr. Shah prays that the Special Civil Application No.8321 of 2020 be allowed and the impugned order of detention be quashed. 9. On the other hand, this appeal has been vehemently opposed by Mr. Dharmesh Devnani, the learned AGP appearing for the State. Mr. Devnani would submit that no error, not to speak of any error of law, could be said to have been committed by the learned Single Judge in passing the impugned order. 10. Mr. Devnani would submit that the contention on behalf of the appellant as regards non-application of mind on the part of the Detaining Authority with respect to the four criminal cases, in which, the appellant has already been acquitted, should not be entertained as no foundation has been led in this regard by the appellant in his writ application. Mr. Devnani pointed out that there are no pleadings in this regard, and for the first time in the present appeal, it has been argued that out of the ten cases relied upon by the Detaining Authority, in the first four cases, the detenue has already been acquitted. Mr. Devnani would submit that in the absence of any pleadings and relevant materials on record, this Court may not entertain such a submission. 11. Mr. Mr. Devnani would submit that in the absence of any pleadings and relevant materials on record, this Court may not entertain such a submission. 11. Mr. Devnani would submit that this Court may not go into the relevancy or sufficiency of the materials, upon which, the Detaining Authority has based its subjective satisfaction for the purpose of passing the order of preventive detention. According to Mr. Devnani, ten cases have been registered so far against the appellant for different offences under the IPC and there are statements of local witnesses recorded in Camera indicating that the activities of the appellant are very nefarious leading to breach of maintenance of public order. 12. In such circumstances, referred to above, Mr. Devnani prays that there being no merit in this appeal, the same may be dismissed. ANALYSIS 13. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and having gone through the materials on record, the only question that falls for our consideration is whether the learned Single Judge committed any error in passing the impugned judgment and order. 14. When this appeal was taken up for hearing on 17th September, 2020, it was pointed out by Mr. Shah that out of ten criminal cases registered against the appellant, in four of those, the appellant has already been acquitted. Prima facie, it appears that this fact was also brought to the notice of the learned Single Judge. There is a passing reference in this regard in Para-5 of the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge. However, it appears that in the absence of any proper pleadings and foundation, the learned Single Judge did not go further into this issue. However, taking into consideration the fact that this is a matter, in which, the appellant has been preventively detained, we thought fit to pass the following order dated 17th September, 2020: “In the course of the hearing of this appeal, Mr. Nisarg D. Shah, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant pointed out that in the detention order, there is a reference of 10 cases registered against the appellant at different Police Stations for different IPC offences. However, according to him, out of those 10 cases referred to, the appellant has been acquitted in the first four cases referred to in the order of detention. According to Mr. However, according to him, out of those 10 cases referred to, the appellant has been acquitted in the first four cases referred to in the order of detention. According to Mr. Shah, this aspect has not been taken into consideration by the detaining authority and it would reflect total non-application of mind thereby vitiating the order of detention. Prima facie, it appears that this particular point was not argued very seriously before the learned Single Judge. It is conceded before us that no documentary evidence in this regard was adduced along with the writ application while challenging the detention order. We find a cursory reference of the acquittal in some of the cases in para 5 of the impugned judgment of the learned Single Judge. However, it does not carry the matter any further. We take notice of the fact that even in the memorandum of the present appeal, there is no such contention raised nor any evidence has been adduced. In such circumstances, we find it difficult to appreciate this particular argument. However, In the larger interest of justice, we grant one opportunity to the learned counsel to place on record the judgments passed by the trial court acquitting the appellant in the 4 cases referred to above by way of a draft amendment on oath. Copy of such draft amendment shall be served well in advance to Mr. D.M.Devnani, learned AGP appearing for the State on or before 24th of September, 2020. Mr. Devnani may also look into the draft amendment and take appropriate instructions in the matter. Place the matter for further hearing on 30-9-2020 in first five cases.” 15. Pursuant to the afore-quoted order, the appellant has filed a draft amendment, placing all the four judgments of acquittal passed by the Trial Court. 16. Mr. Devnani, the learned AGP, with his usual fairness, submitted that he has verified with the authorities and it is true that out of the ten cases relied upon by the Detaining Authority in the grounds of detention, the appellant came to be acquitted in the first four cases. Mr. Devnani fairly pointed out that this fact does not appear to have been brought by the sponsoring authority to the notice of the Detaining Authority. Mr. Devnani fairly submitted that in such circumstances, he would leave upon this Court to look into the issue appropriately. 17. Mr. Devnani fairly pointed out that this fact does not appear to have been brought by the sponsoring authority to the notice of the Detaining Authority. Mr. Devnani fairly submitted that in such circumstances, he would leave upon this Court to look into the issue appropriately. 17. We are of the view that the order of detention deserves to be quashed and set aside on the ground of non-application of mind itself. Had this material fact of acquittal in four criminal cases been placed before the Detaining Authority, it might have influenced the mind of the Detaining Authority one way or the other on the question whether or not to make the detention order. As rightly submitted by Mr. Shah, the withholding of the vital fact that the detenue has been acquitted in four criminal cases, resulting in the non-application of the mind of the Detaining Authority to the said fact, vitiates the impugned order of detention. 18. The afore-discussed proposition of law is no longer res integra in view of the two decisions of the Supreme Court (i) Ramesh vs. State of Gujarat & Ors., AIR 1989 SC 1881 and (ii) Dharamdas Shamlal Agarwal vs. The Police Commissioner & Anr., Judgments Today 1989 (1) SC 580. 19. In the result, for the afore-mentioned reasons, we hold that the detention order is liable to be set aside on both the grounds. Accordingly, the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge is set aside and the writ petition being the Special Civil Application No.8321 of 2020 is allowed and the order of detention is quashed. The detenue is directed to be set at liberty forthwith, if not required in any other case. Appeal allowed.