SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1997 Supreme(AP) 478

Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : S.PARVATHA RAO
Nookaratnam - Appellant
Versus
Magistrate, Nellore - Respondent
W.P.No.1924/97
Decided On : 06-11-97
Advocates Appeared :
Mr. C. Padmanabha Reddy,Sri. C. Praveen Kumar

Headnote:AP PREVENTION OF DANGEROUS ACTIVITIES OF BOOTLEGGERS, DACOITS DRUG OFFENDERS, GOONDAS, IMMORAL TRAFFIC OFFEN-DERS AND LAND GRABBERS ACT, 1986, Sec 2(a) - Grounds of detention do not mention that detenue was dealing with spurious liquor - Allegations only for bootlegging and no other dangerous activities were alleged against detenue - Absence of specific allegations that seized liquor was spurious and dangerous to health vitiates detention order - There cannot be implied inference that detenue was indulging in acts prejudicial to the maintenance of public order - Order of detention set aside

S. PARVATHA RAO, J.

( 1 ) THE petitioner seeks a Writ of habeas-corpus for the production and release of her husband, llluri Jayaram s/o ramachandraiah, questioning his detention under the order dated 16. 11. 1996 of the 1 st respondent under sub-Sections (1) and (2) of section 3 of the Andhra Pradesh Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Boot-leggers, dacoits, Drug-Offenders, Goondas, Immoral traffic Offenders and Land-Grabbers Act, 1986 (for short the Act ) as illegal and void. Under the said order of the 1st respondent made on 16. 11. 1996, Illuri Jayaram was taken into custody on the same day. Subsequently, on 17. 12. 1996 the Advisory board considered his detention under the said order and sent its recommendations to the Government; and thereafter the government confirmed the 1st respondent s order of detention in its G. O. Rt. No. 6317, general Administration (Genl. A) Department dated 27. 12. 1996 and directed that his detention should be continued for the whole period of 12 months from the date of his detention.

( 2 ) THE detenu was served the grounds on which he was detained. All the acts alleged against him related to possession and transportation of Indian Made Foreign liquor and sales of such liquor though he had "no licence or permit to deal in transportation, possession and sale of liquor". After referring to the various acts alleged against the detenu, the 1st respondent stated in the grounds of detention as follows:"so it is clear that you are contravening the provisions of A. P. Prohibition Act, 1995 and your activities of sales of liquor is likely to cause wide spread danger to the lives and public health as defined under Section 2 (a) of A. P. Prevention of dangerous Activities of Boot-leggers, dacoits, Drug Offenders, Goondas, immoral Traffic Offenders and Land grabbers Act, 1986. Hence, it is clear that your activities attracts the provisions of boot legger as defined under Sec. 2 (b) and 2 (a) read with the explanation under a. P. Prevention of Dangerous Activities of boot-leggers, Dacoits, Drug-offenders goondas, Immoral Traffic Offendersand land Grabbers Act, 1986. So far you have been arrested about 7 times in nellore and Sullurpet Proh. and Excise stations for possession, transportation and sale of liquor. But still you are continuing your activities, immediately after getting bail from the Hon ble Courts and thereby causing a feeling of insecurity among the public and wide spread danger to the lives and public health. So the normal action of arresting and producing before the Hon ble Court and launching of A. P. Prohibition Act, 1995 is a long drawn process and it will not have the desired effect, of preventing you from possession and sale of liquor thereby causing in any manner prejudicial to the public order. From the facts and circumstances mentioned above and on careful examination I am satisfy you should be detained under A. P. Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Boot-Leggers, dacoits, Drug offenders, Goondas, immoral Traffic Offenders and Land grabbers Act, 1986 in order to prevent you from further acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. "

( 3 ) THE petitioner submits that in the grounds of detention nowhere it was stated that the seized liquor was spurious and was dangerous to health and that therefore it cannot be said that the detenu was indulging in acts which were prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. The petitioner relies on the explanation to clause (a) of section 2 of the Act defining "acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. "

( 4 ) IN the counter affidavit of the 1st respondent, it is further stated that "the prohibition and Excise Inspector, Nellore received number of petitions from stonehousepet, Usmansahebpet and brundavanam stating that due to his sales of liquor number of untoward incidents had occurred in their vicinity and caused nuisance to them. . . ". But, it was stated in the grounds of detention that "the















Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top