Back
Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : M.N.RAO, S.V.MARUTHI
Boya Chinna Subbarayudu - Appellant
Versus
Collector and District Magistrate, Kurnool - Respondent
Decided On : 10-17-94
PREVENTIVE DETENTION - A. P. PREVENTION OF DANGEROUS ACTIVITIES OF BOOT LEGGERS, DACOITS, DRUG OFFENDERS, GOONDAS, IMMORAL TRAFFIC OFFENDERS AND LAND GRABBERS ACT, 1986 - SECTION 3 (1) - DETENTION - GROUNDS - SUFFICIENCY - ILLEGAL DISTILLED LIQUOR - PRESENCE OF FUSEL OIL - WHETHER CONSTITUTES GRAVE OR WIDESPREAD DANGER TO LIFE OR PUBLIC HEALTH - NECESSITY TO SPECIFY IN GROUNDS.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, Boya Chinna Subbarayudu, challenged the order passed by the District Collector and District Magistrate, Kurnool, detaining his brother, Boya Naidu O. Boya Savenehu, under section 3 (2) of the A. P. Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Boot Leggers, Dacoits, Drug Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders and Land Grabbers Act, 1986 (Act 1 of 1986). The detention was ordered on the grounds that the detenu was involved in two incidents of possessing and selling illicitly distilled liquor.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the grounds of detention were insufficient to justify the detention of the petitioner's brother. The court found that the presence of fusel oil in the seized liquor, by itself, was not injurious to health. Only when fusel oil is separated from the liquor and consumed in large quantities either by human beings or animals, it will prove injurious. The court also found that the grounds of detention did not specifically advert to the fact that the percentage of the fusel oil found in the seized liquor constituted a grave or widespread danger to life or public health.
Issues: 1. Whether the grounds of detention were sufficient to justify the detention of the petitioner's brother? 2. Whether the presence of fusel oil in the seized liquor, by itself, was injurious to health?
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that unless the grounds of detention specifically advert to the fact that the percentage of the fusel oil found in the seized liquor constitutes a grave or widespread danger to life or public health, it is not open to the detaining authority to order detention under section 3 of the Act. The court relied on the definition of "boot-legger" in Section 2 (b) of the Act and the definition of "acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order" in Section 2 (a) of the Act.
Final Decision: The court allowed the writ petition and quashed the impugned order passed by the District Collector and District Magistrate, Kurnool. The court directed the release of the detenu forthwith, unless his presence was required in connection with any other case.
( 1 ) THE petitioner, Boya Chinna Subbarayudu, is challenging in this writ petition the order passed by the District Collector and District Magistrate, Kurnool, the first respondent herein, on 13-7-1994 in Re. C1/2317/m/94 by which one Boya Naidu O. Boya Savenehu, the brother of the petitioner, was detained under section 3 (2) of Act 1 of 1986 (A. P. Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Boot Leggers, Dacoits, Drug Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders and Land Grabbers Act, 1986) "with a view to prevent the detenu from further acting in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. " The State Government has confirmed the order of the District Collector and the Advisory Board has expressed the opinion after hearing the petitioner that in its opinion there is sufficient cause for the detention of the detenu in question. The period of detention as fixed by the Government under section 12 is one year with effect from the date of detention.
( 2 ) IN support of the order of the detention, two grounds are mentioned by the detaining authority, a copy of which was supplied to the detenu. The two grounds are : 1. On 1- the Enforcement Squad led by Excise Inspector raided a Venka on the South Eastern side of Isukapally village of Sirval Mandal and found 4 Iron Drums. One person stirring with his hand in one of the drums. The person fled on spotting the raid party. The Excise Constable, Sri Sunder Sekhar participating in the raids, identified the person as Boya Savenehu son of Boya Gangulaiah resident of Isukapally, aged about 30 years. On verification, each of the 4 drums found containing 200 litres (approximately) of fermented Jaggery wash, the wash was seized, samples were drawn and the wash destroyed. A case was registered under Section 34 (a) of A. P. Excise Act, 1968 in Cr. No. 51/93-94 of Sirvel Excise Range. The Government Chemical Examiner for Excise, Regional Excise Laboratory, Kurnool reported that the sample is "fermented WASH". The case is under investigation. 2. On 20-4-1994, raid party led by Assistant Excise Superintendent, Nandyal, raided Isukapally village and found you carrying a white can in front of your house. On verification the can was found containing 10 litres of illicitly distilled liquor. You were arrested and the contraband was seized. The case was registered under section 34 (a) of A. P. Excise Act in Cr. No. 70/93-94 of Sirvel Range. You were remanded to Judicial Custody and later on released. The Government Chemical Examiner for Excise, Regional Excise Laboratory, Kurnool reported that the sample of the seized liquor is "illicitly DISTILLED LIQUOR". The case is under investigation. The reports of the Government Chemical Examiner for Excise, Regional Excise Laboratory, Kurnool in respect of seized wash and illicit distilled arrack on the two occasions clearly indicate that they are "fermented wash and illicitly distilled liquor" respectively and consumption of such arrack would cause harm to human health at large and thus affect adversely public order within the meaning of Section 2 (a) of the A. P. Act No. I, 1986 read with explanation given thereunder.
( 3 ) THE fermented wash referred to in ground No. 1, according to the Chemical Examiner s report "when chemically tested" disclosed : 1. Test for Ethyl Alcohol. . . Positive. 2. Test for Sugars. . . Positive. With regard to the raid referred to in ground No. 2 the seized liquor according to the Chemical Examiner s report is illicitly distilled liquor and on subjecting the same to the chemical analysis, the test yielded the following : 1. Test for Ethyl Alcohol. . . Positive. 2. Test for Fusel Oil. . . Positive. 3. Test for Acidity. . . Positive.
( 4 ) IN the counter-affidavit filed by the first respondent it is averred, inter alia, while adverting to the presence of fusel oil that "higher alcohol s are the chief components of what is popularly known as fusel oil. Fusel oil contains besides higher alcohols substances like o
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
