Back
1992 Supreme(AP) 150
Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : D.JAGANNADHA RAJU, V.SIVARAMAN NAIR
Syed Jalaluddin - Appellant
Versus
Government Of A.P. - Respondent
Decided On : 03-11-92
A single incident of an offence committed by a communal offender may be sufficient to justify the detaining authority's satisfaction that the detention is necessary to prevent him from acting in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order.
Headnote:
DETENTION - COMMUNAL OFFENDER - DEFINITION - SINGLE INCIDENT - SUFFICIENCY - DISCLOSURE OF GROUNDS - PUBLIC INTEREST - BAIL APPLICATION AND ORDER - NON-SUPPLY - PREJUDICE - REPRESENTATION - DELAY IN CONSIDERING.
Fact of the Case:
Petitioner's son, Syed Ghousuddin, was detained under the A.P. Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Communal Offenders Act, 1984 (the Act). The detention order was approved, confirmed, and continued by the authorities. Petitioner challenged the detention order, arguing that his son was not a communal offender as defined in the Act, that the grounds for detention were insufficient, and that he was not provided with copies of his bail application and order. He also alleged that there was a delay in considering his representation against the detention order.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the detenu was a communal offender as defined in the Act, as he was a member of a gang that committed an offence punishable under Section 153-A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The court also held that a single incident of an offence committed by the detenu could be sufficient to justify the detaining authority's satisfaction that the detention was necessary to prevent him from acting in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. The court further held that the detaining authority was not required to disclose all the grounds for detention if it considered such disclosure to be against public interest. The court also held that the non-supply of copies of the bail application and order did not prejudice the detenu, as the detaining authority had applied its mind to the question of whether the detenu had the propensities to act in a prejudicial manner in the future. Finally, the court held that there was no delay in considering the representation against the detention order.
Issues: 1. Whether the detenu was a communal offender as defined in the Act? 2. Whether a single incident of an offence committed by the detenu was sufficient to justify the detaining authority's satisfaction that the detention was necessary to prevent him from acting in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order? 3. Whether the detaining authority was required to disclose all the grounds for detention? 4. Whether the non-supply of copies of the bail application and order prejudiced the detenu? 5. Whether there was a delay in considering the representation against the detention order?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The definition of "communal offender" in the Act includes a person who commits or attempts to commit, or abets or incites the commission of offences punishable under Section 153-A or 153-B of the IPC, or under Chapter XV of the IPC. 2. A single incident of an offence committed by the detenu may be sufficient to justify the detaining authority's satisfaction that the detention is necessary to prevent him from acting in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order, if the nature of the act and the attendant circumstances are such as to reasonably justify an inference that the person concerned, if not detained, would be likely to indulge in the commission of such acts in the future. 3. The detaining authority is not required to disclose all the grounds for detention if it considers such disclosure to be against public interest. 4. The non-supply of copies of the bail application and order does not prejudice the detenu, as the detaining authority is bound to apply its mind to the question of whether the detenu already enlarged on bail did have the propensities to act in a prejudicial manner in the future. 5. There is no delay in considering the representation against the detention order if the detaining authority considers the representation and passes final orders within a reasonable time.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the writ petition, holding that the detention order was valid and that the petitioner was not entitled to any relief.
( 1 ) PETITIONER is the father of Syed Ghousuddin who was detained in Central Prison, Chanchalguda, Hyderabad, pursuant to an order of detention passed by the 2nd respondent in order SB (1) No. 7/s7/coa/91 dt. 27-9-91. The initial period of detention was four weeks from 28-9-91. The order was passed under S. 3 (3) of the A. P. Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Communal Offenders Act, 1984, hereinafter referred to as the Act . The order as approved by the 1st respondent in G. O. Rt. No. 4716 G. A. D. dt. 9-10-91 and under S. 12 (1) of the Act. In G. O. No. 4921 dt. 23-10-1991 the same was confirmed by the Government, continuing the detention for a period of four weeks from 28-9-1991. In G. O. 4942 dt. 24-10-1991, the 1st respondent directed that the detention of the petitioner should be continued for the maximum period of six months from the date of detention. Petitioner had in the meantime, submitted a representation against the detention order to the Advisory Board. It was therefore that Government passed orders on 26-11-1991 in Memo No. 1267/gen. A/91-3 rejecting the representation. Petitioner submits that the order of detention and its approval and confirmation and its continuance for the full time as provided in the Act as also the rejection of the representation are illegal and unconstitutional. Petitioner submits that the Act permits detention of only communal offenders as defined in S. 2 (b ). communal Offender is defined to mean -"a person who, either by himself or as a member or as leader of a gang or an organisation commits or attempts to commit or abets or incites the commission of offences punishable under S. 153-A and S. 153-B of the IPC. or under Chapter XV of the said Code". He submits that only such communal offenders can be detained to prevent them from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public Order. The submission of the petitioner is that there is no finding in the order or in the grounds that the detenu was a communal offender as defined in the Act. What is stated in the grounds is that he is a dangerous fanatic and is therefore a threat to maintenance of Public Order. He also submits that only such act which is mentioned in the grounds is that a rowdy sheet was opened in respect of him on 2-3-1991. Petitioner submits even that will not justify the order of detention. Reference is also made to the FIR in crime No. 116/1990 in respect of an incident which took place on 8-12-1990, in which, it was stated that six unknown culprits came abruptly, surrounded the complainant, fisted him and one of them stoned on the back side of the complainant due to religious feeling and attempted to take away the life of the complainant. Detenu was not identified as on the assailants in the statement; nor was he mentioned as an assailant in the first Information Report which the complainant had filed. Petitioner therefore submits that the assertion contained in the grounds that on 8-12-1990 when the city was under communal tension, the detenu along with his associates armed with deadly weapons formed an unlawful assembly with a common object and intention to strike terror in the people of one section and to create communal disharmony attacked and stabbed Sri D. Satyanarayana, is untrue and unsustainable. He submits further that the police filed a final charge sheet in crime No. 116/90 on 2/10/1991 and that disclosed offences punishable under S. 153-A and offences under Chapters XV and XVI of the Indian Penal Code. Petitioner submits that the statements of identifying witnesses recorded by the investigating officer under S. 161, Cr. P. C. were not annexed to the grounds. He submits further that the non-supply of the application for bail and the order granting the same violates his right under Art. 22 (5) of the Constitution of India. He submits finally that the single incident in crime No. 116/90 did not justify an assumption that it was necessary to detain the petitioner to prev
