SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
A.P. SEN AND L.M. SHARMA, JJ.
Smt. K. Aruna Kumari, Petitioner
Versus
Govt. of A.P. and others, Respondents.
Writ Petn. (Criminal) No. 529 of 1987 with Spl. Leave Petn. (Cri) No. 1916 of 1987,
D/- 11-11-1987.
Advocates appeared
Mr. V. M. Tarkunde, Sr. Advocate, Mr. G. Narsimahallu and Mr. Nalin Kumar, Advocates with him, for Petitioner; Mr. E. Manohar, Advocate General, Mr. B. Datta, Addl. Solicitor General, Mr. T.V.S.N. Chari, Ms. V. Grover, Mr. G. Ramesh and Ms. A Subhashini, Advocates with them for Respondents.
Constitution of India – Article 226 – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 161 – Prevention of Blackmarketing and Maintenance of Supplies of Essential Commodities Act, 1980 – Section 3 – Essential Commodities Act, 1955 – Section 7 and 8 – A.P. Levy Cement Distribution (Licensing and Regulation) Order, 1982 – Making detention order - Clandestine business of diversion – Grounds served on the detenu for making the detention order alleged that undertakes contract works of various types under South Central Railway and indulged in clandestine business of diversion of levy cement meant for use in Masonry Ballast Wall along with railway track on suburban section between Kachiguda and Railway Stations and thus acted in a manner prejudicial to maintenance of supplies of cement an essential commodity mentioned are that on receipt of an information that levy cement was being transferred into non-levy cement bags for its diversion to works not intended Inspector of Police, Vigilance Cell with his staff made a surprise visit in presence of witnesses at site of a private building construction and found information passed on to him to be correct – Held, Question whether detenu was acting in a manner prejudicial to maintenance of supplies essential to life of community is a matter of inference to be drawn from learned Advocate General was fair enough to accept before us that applications for grant of anticipatory bail moved before criminal Court were not placed before detaining authority could not be said that there was no material upon which subjective satisfaction of detaining authority could be based – Court had occasion to deal with them decisions proceed on well settled principle that if material and vital facts which would influence mind of the detaining authority one way or other on question whether or not to make detention order are not placed it would vitiate subjective satisfaction rendering detention order illegal not so in present case was ample material before District Magistrate for him to base his subjective satisfaction as to the necessity for passing impugned order as stated by him in his affidavit – Petitions dismissed.
Judgment
L. M. SHARMA, J. :- K. Madhava Rao, husband of the petitioner, has been detained under S.3 of the Prevention of Blackmarketing and Maintenance of Supplies of Essential Commodities Act, 1980. The petitioner filed an application under Art. 226 of the Constitution before the Andhra Pradesh High Court for a writ of habeas corpus which was dismissed on 18-7-1987. The Special Leave Petition is directed against the said order. The petitioner has also challenged the detention order by the application under Art. 32 of the Constitution before this Court in Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 529 of 1987.
2. The grounds served on the detenu for making the detention order dt. 15-5-1987 alleged that he (the detenu Madhava Rao) undertakes contract works of various types under South Central Railway (SCR) and indulged in clandestine business of diversion of levy cement meant for use in the Masonry Ballast Wall along with the railway track on the suburban section between Kachiguda and Falaknuma Railway Stations, and thus acted in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of supplies of cement, an essential commodity. The facts mentioned are that on receipt of an information on 18-12-1986 that levy cement was being transferred into non-levy cement bags for its diversion to works not intended, the Inspector of Police, Vigilance Cell with his staff made a surprise visit in presence of witnesses at about 1 p.m. the same day, to the site of a private building under construction, and found the information passed on to him to be correct. On inquiry it was discovered that a house belonging to one Smt. Mahati Singh, daughter of Y. Krishna Murthy, Divisional Railway Manager, was under construction under the supervision of the detenu, and the levy cement transferred into non-levy cement bags was being stored in a nearby shed for use in the construction of the said house. The watchman of Y. Krishna Murthy, named Varala Vollaiah, was kept there as guard. The detenu was supervising the construction of the house through his employee James George. The workmen engaged in the work were also examined by the police. The facts which came to light indicated that two days earlier, that is, on 16-12-1986, 200 bags of levy cement reached the site and were unloaded in the shed. James George instructed the labourers to transfer the cement into non-levy cement bags, and his instruction was carried out on the following day, the 17th of Dec. 1986 and non-levy cement bags were restitched. Yollaiah, the watchman, further stated that the cement was sent by the detenu through James George who had informed the witness that cement on two other lorries had also been unloaded in the nearby Kakatiyanagar and stored in a room belonging to the Nageshwar Rao for similar misuse. On receiving this information the Police Inspector raided the plot in Kakatiyanagar mentioned by the witness and recovered 400 bags of levy cement. A criminal case under Cls. 12 and 13 of the A.P. Levy Cement Distribution (Licensing and Regulation) Order, 1982, read with Ss. 7 and 8 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 was commenced, and further investigation proceeded.
3. The investigation continued for three months till 18-3-1987. Smt. Mahati Singh and her father Y. Krishna Murthy were also examined by the police and they confirmed that the detenu Madhava Rao was looking after the construction of Smt. Mahati Singhs house. The evidence collected by the police indicated that 1000 bags of levy cement was handed over to the detenu through his employee Babu on 16-12-1986 and out of this stock 600 bags on three lorries were despatched to Habshiguda, which were discovered by the Inspector on the 18th of Dec. 1986. Both Madhava Rao and his servant James absconded and were ultimately arrested on 18-3-1987, when the detenu is alleged to have confessed before the Inspector of Police. The detenu was released on bail the following day, that is, 19-3-1987. All these facts were mentioned in the grounds and it was stated that
relied on : Rajendra Prashad v. State of U. P.
Hemlala Kantilal Shah v. State of Maharashtra
referred to : Ashadevi v. K. Shiveraj, Additional Chief secretary to the Govt. of Gujarat
Mohd. Shakeel Wahid Ahmed v. State of Maharashtra
Pushpadevi M. Jalia v. M. L. Wadhawan, Additional secretary, Govt. of India
relied on : State of U. P. v. Zavad Zama Khan
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.