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

2014 Supreme(AP) 438

HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO, J.
Sheela Bai
Versus
The State of A.P. & Another
W.P.No.4686 of 2014
Decided on : 28-03-2014

Advocates appeared:
For the Appellant:M. Laxman Rao, Advocate.
For the Respondents:Advocate General, G.P. for Home.

Preventive detention cannot be used as an instrument to keep a person in perpetual custody without trial.

Headnote:Andhra Pradesh Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Dacoits, Drug Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders and Land Grabbers Act, 1986---Section 3-Preventive Detention---Sale of arrack and spurious and illicit liquor-Preventive detention involves detaining of a person without trial in order to prevent him / her from committing certain types of offences---But such detention cannot be made a substitute for the ordinary law and absolve the investigating authorities of their normal functions of investigating crimes which detenu may have committed-Preventive detention in most cases is for a year only and cannot be used as an instrument to keep a person in perpetual custody without trial-Periodical involvement of detenu in various excise offences at regular interval which have been chronicled in Detention Order do not lend sufficient support for Detaining Authority to pass Preventive Detention Order against husband of petitioner.

       Result-Writ Petition allowed.

       

Judgment :

The petitioner is the wife of the detenu and hence, challenges the Order of Preventive Detention, passed by the 2nd respondent on 24-09-2013, in this Writ Petition.

It is stated that the detenu has been indulging in paddling prohibited intoxicants, such as sale of arrack and spurious and illicit liquor. It also appears that he is being prosecuted in Crime No.202 of 2011/12 of Prohibition & Excise Station, Saroornagar, Ranga Reddy District, which case was booked against him after the Task Force raided his premises and detected 70 illicit liquor sachets, each containing 100 milli liters. The criminal Court concerned has released him on bail in the said case. The Government Chemical Examiner, who analyzed the sample, declared it as ‘illicitly distilled liquor’, which is unfit for potable purposes. The detenu was again booked in Crime No.396 of 2011/12 registered on 25-10-2011, after another raid on his premises resulted in detecting 106 illicit liquor sachets, each containing 100 milli liters. Even in this case, he was enlarged on bail later on. The Government Chemical Examiner filed his report disclosing that the material is illicitly distilled liquor and the same is unfit for human consumption. Again, on 02-11-2011, another raid on the premises of the detenu has helped in detecting 100 illicitly distilled liquor sachets, each containing 100 milli liters. He was released on bail in this case also. On 04-03-2013, again, the Enforcement Directorate, when raided the premises of the detenu, it resulted in detecting 170 illicit liquor sachets, each containing 100 milli liters. Similarly, cases were booked against him on 15-05-2013 and 28-05-2013. The detenu was again enlarged on bail by the criminal Court concerned. It appears that when the Detaining Authority sought for the opinion of the Professor of Medicine & Chief Physician, Osmania General Hospital, Hyderabad, he has pointed out the ill-effects of consumption of illicit liquor on the health of the consumers. The Detaining Authority, after considering this material, had formed an opinion that the detenu was engaged in preparation and sale of illicitly distilled liquor, which would have adverse effect in maintenance of public order and also is a source for grave and wide-spread danger to the public health. Therefore, the Detaining Authority is satisfied that the Provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Dacoits, Drug Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders and Land Grabbers Act, 1986 (henceforth referred to as ‘the Act’), should be invoked and he should be detained in custody. The Detaining Authority has formed his opinion, based upon subjective satisfaction of the factors spelt out by him in the following manner:

“It is imperative to prevent you from acting in any manner prejudicial to maintenance of Public Order, but I feel that recourse to normal law would involve considerable time and may not be effective deterrent in preventing you from indulging in further activities prejudicial to maintenance of public order in and around Janardhanreddy nagar of Jillellaguda, Saroornagar Rangareddy District under Excise Station limits of Saroornagar, Rangareddy District.”

It appears that the State Government had accorded its approval to the said Detention Order, in terms of sub-section (3) of Section 3 of the said Act. Subsequently, the Advisory Board on Preventive Detentions, constituted under Section 9 of the said Act, reviewed the case of the detenu on 11-10-2013 and tendered an opinion that there is sufficient cause for the preventive detention of the detenu. Thus, these orders have given rise to the present Writ Petition.

Heard Sri M. Laxman Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Y.V. Vivekananda, learned Special Government Pleader attached to the learned Advocate General for the respondents.

Sri Laxman Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner would urge that in exactly identical fact situation prevailing in MUNAGAL
















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