Back
Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : CH.S.R.K.PRASAD, G.BIKSHAPATHY
S.Prasad Reddy - Appellant
Versus
Collector and District Magistrate, Anantapur - Respondent
Decided On : 11-24-04
Held : The first requirement is that the said person is alleged to have habitually committed the offences falling within chapter XVI, XVII and XXII of Indian penal Code. Further, the acts alleged to have been committed ought to be prejudicial to the maintenance of the public order. It is only on satisfying these conditions, it is open for the appropriate authority to issue orders of detention preventing him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of the public order, which encompasses the acts covered by the explanation also namely causing or calculated to cause any harm danger or feeling of insecurity among the general public or any section therefore or a grave or widespread danger to the public health.
a single or an isolated act cannot be characterised as a habitual Act.
Any offence not covered by chapters XVI and XVII cannot be made basis for the satisfaction of the detaining authority to issue detention Order.
Maintenance of Internal Security act empowers the detaining authority to issue the Order of detention under Section 3. There is no specific mention with regard to the alleged illegal acts with reference to the other enactments. Therefore, the wider discretion is given to the detaining authority to refer to various Acts to form an opinion that the activities of the persons are prejudicial to the maintenance of the security of India and security of the State and public Order.
In the instant case, the expression "bootlegger", "goonda" etc. have been specifically defined in the Act in order to bring a person within the definition of "goonda", the Legislature has stipulated clear parameters to the effect that he should have committed the offences falling under Chapters XVI, XVII and XXII oflpc. The penal laws have to be implemented strictly and there cannot be any play in the joints. The express enactment shuts the door to further implications. No inference is proper if it goes against the express words parliament has used. (Expressum facit cessare taciturn ).
Though preventive law stands on a different footing than the penal law, but yet, the impact of farmer law cannot be more than that of later law. The liberty of a citizen is curtailed temporarily by invoking exceptions under Article 22 of the Constitution of India.
it is not appropriate to stretch the definition of "goonda " so as to include all the offences falling in various enactments other than Indian Penal Code.
Can it be said that a person could be called "goonda " if he commits the offence under the Anti- corruption Laws or the Forest Act, Excise act, Arms Act, Explosive Substances Act, the answer should be only in negative. The object of the enactment is to prevent six classes of persons viz. "goondas", "bootleggers" etc. as defined in the Act from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of Public Order including those acts covered by explanation to Section 2 (a) of the Act. Therefore, the expression "goonda" has to be interpreted only with reference to the offences covered by three chapters contained in the said definition and none-else. Otherwise, it leads to anomalous results and confers unfettered power on the detaining authority, which is not the intention of the Act.
( 1 ) COMMON questions of law are raised in these writ petitions and hence they are being disposed of by a common judgment, however, keeping in view the incidents in each individual case.
( 2 ) THE Collector and the District magistrate, Anantapur by virtue of the powers vested in him under Section 3 of a. P. Prevention of Dangerous Activities of bootleggers, Dacoits, Drug Offenders, goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders and land Grabbers Act (1 of 1986) (for brief the act ), passed Orders of detention. Consequently, writs of habeas corpus came to be filed by the petitioners on behalf of detenus seeking production and release of the detenus after holding the Order of detention as illegal and invalid.
( 3 ) THE learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners and the learned advocate-General have elaborately and minutously argued most of the general issues arising out of preventive detention Orders. Therefore, it became inevitable for us to deal with each and every contention in extenso.
( 4 ) THE learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners Mr. C. Padmanabha Reddy advanced the following common submissions in the writ petitions:1. The grounds referred to in the detention Order are stale and not proximate to the Order of detention. There is also no rationale nexus to the conclusions drawn in the detention Order. 2. The detention orders were issued on vague, irrelevant and extraneous grounds. 3. The acts alleged to have been committed by the detenu would not fall within the wider spectrum of "public Order", but they are merely "law and Order" for which preventive detention measures cannot be invoked. 4. Detenu did not fit in the definition of "goonda" as defined under Section 2 (g) of the Act, since the offence alleged to have been committed by the detenu would not fall within the Chapters XVI, XVII and XXII of the I. P. C. 5. The grounds of detention were issued on the ground of political rivalry, unless it falls within the mischief of public Order, the detention based on political rivalry and consequential illegal acts cannot be taken into consideration. He refers to number of decisions, which would be discussed infra.
( 5 ) PER contra, the learned Advocate- general tracing the genesis of the Act submits that the very intention of the Act is to prevent the person from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. In such a situation, the Order of detention cannot be attacked on the premise of stale and irrelevant grounds in the Order of detention. These grounds are only taken into consideration for assessing the propensity of the detenu and the mere reference would not invalidate the Order of detention. Making submission on the expression "public Order" and "law and order", the learned Advocate-General, however, submits that even though there is marked difference between these two expressions, yet, they have to be interpreted keeping in view the nature of activities of the detenu and its affect on the community at large. He submits that the issue relating to "law and Order" at times takes the colour of "public Order" also and therefore, each case has to be decided on its own merits. Submitting the contentions with regard to the definition of the expression "goonda ", the learned Counsel would submit that even though the offences punishable under chapter XVI, XVII and XXII of IPC are sine qua non for bringing a person within the definition of "goonda ", but reference to any ancillary act, being an offence under the other provisions of Indian Penal Code or the other enactment is not a bar and mere reference would not vitiate the detention order. The definition does not totally prohibit from taking into consideration the illegal activities of the detenu, which fall within the category of offences under other provisions of Indian Penal Code or other enactments. Reacting to the ground of political rivalry, the learned Advocate-General submits that large-scale horror and looting and
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
