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

2019 Supreme(AP) 330

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
J.K. MAHESHWARI, M. SEETHARAMA MURTI, JJ.
S. Raja Babu - Appellant
Versus
State of A.P. and Ors. - Respondents
Writ Petition No. 11315 of 2019
Decided On : 06-12-2019

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant : P. Narahari Babu.
For the Respondents:Advocate General.

Headnote:

A.P. Prohibition Act, 1995 - Section 7(A)/ 8(e) - Immoral Traffic Offenders and Land-Grabbers Act, 1986 - Petitioner challenging the detention - learned Special Government Pleader representing the learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the respondents - Illicitly distilled liquor, unfit for human consumption and injurious to health - Only taken into consideration for his detention under the provisions of the Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Boot-Leggers, Dacoits - Detention order is unjustified. Personal liberty is a precious right and such right cannot be curtailed on the basis of alleged involvement in two crimes - There are no grounds much less valid grounds justifying the detention - Held, Statements in the detention order cannot be said to have been made responsibly - In our considered view, merely because the detenu was arraigned as an accused in two crimes in which he was enlarged on bail, it cannot be said that there is an imperative need to detain him; therefore, allowing his detention would amount to regarding the orders impugned as orders of punishment for crimes passed without trials, though the orders are purporting to be orders of preventive detention - On wholesome consideration we find that the satisfaction said to have been arrived at by the authority is not based on materials, which are of rationally probative value - Court accordingly hold that there are no justifiable grounds for the detention of the detenu - Aforesaid reasons, we are of the opinion that the impugned detention order and the confirmation order are unsustainable under facts - It is pertinent to mention that in view of the resolution supra, there is no need to advert to the other grounds sought to be urged in support of the attack of the detention of the detenu - Before parting, it is to be noted that though some decisions are cited on either side, there is no need to refer to the decisions as the issue is amenable for resolution on facts peculiar to the case and is resolved accordingly - Petition allowed.

ORDER :

M. Seetharama Murti, J.

1. This writ petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is filed by the petitioner challenging the detention of his brother, S. Krishna, under the order of detention, dated 27.04.2019, passed by the 2nd respondent - Collector & District Magistrate, East Godavari District, which was confirmed by the 1st respondent-Government of Andhra Pradesh under G.O.Rt. No. 1141, dated 23.05.2019.

2. We have heard the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner, and of learned Special Government Pleader representing the learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the respondents. We have perused the material record.

3. To begin with, it is apt to note that the following two cases, which were registered against the detenu, are only taken into consideration for his detention under the provisions 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').

(i). Cr.No. 201 of 2019, dated 30.03.2019, of Prathipadu Prohibition & Excise Station under Section 7(A) read with 8(e) of A.P. Prohibition (Amended) Act, 1997.

On 30.03.2019 at about 6:00 a.m. the Prohibition & Excise Sub Inspector, Prathipadu, found you in presence of mediator near YRC canal bund in Pedasankarlapudi village limits of Prathipadu Mandal with a gunny bag containing three polythene covers each with 10 Lts totalling 30 Lts of ID liquor.

Your co-accused Saina Rambabu, S/o. Sanyasirao, R/o. Siripuram (V) was arrested with 20 Its of ID liquor thus it was 50 Its of ID liquor. The Prohibition & Excise Sub Inspector arrested you, drawn 300 ml of ID liquor into one clean bottle for analysis purpose as sample, sealed the sample bottle and the bag with polythene covers containing remaining I.D. liquor, affixed identity slips and seized entire property under cover of a mediators report and registered the report as F.I.R. in Cr. No. 201 of 2019 under Section 7(A) read with 8(e) of A.P. Prohibition Act, 1995 of Prohibition & Excise Station, Prathipadu. You along with co-accused were produced before the Hon'ble JFCM Court, Prathipadu for remand. Though the Additional Public Prosecutor opposed bail, you were granted bail on 10.04.2019 by the Hon'ble JFCM Court on executing bond of Rs. 10,000/- with two sureties for a like sum of each and a condition that you should appear before the Station House Officer, Prohibition and Excise Station, Prathipadu on every Monday between 10:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Further, on analysis of the sample drawn in this case, the quantity seized is found to be "illicitly distilled liquor, unfit for human consumption and injurious to health". The case is under trial in the Hon'ble JFCM Court of Prathipadu in C.C. No. 403 of 2019.

(ii). Crime No. 76 of 2018, dated 20.02.2018 of Prathipadu Prohibition & Excise Station under Section 7(A) read with 8(e) of A.P. Prohibition (Amended) Act, 1997.

On 20.02.2018, at about 6:00 p.m., the Prohibition and Excise Sub Inspector, Prathipadu in presence of mediators found you with a mica bag near bus stand in Prathipadu village limits of Prathipadu Mandal. On examination, the mica bag found with one polythene cover with 10 Its of ID liquor. On enquiry, you revealed that you distilled the ID liquor in Pedasankarlapudi village limits, distributing the same to the ID sellers to gain profit. You also confessed and explained how you escaped from the Prohibition and Excise Station, Prathipadu on 02.02.2018. Then the Prohibition & Excise Sub Inspector arrested you, drawn 300 ml of ID liquor into one clean bottle for analysis purpose as sample, sealed the sample bottle and the mica bag with polythene covers containing remaining I.D. liquor, affixed identity slips and seized entire property under cover of a mediators report drafted at the place of offence and registered the mediator's report as F.I.R. in crime No. 76 of 2018 under Section 7(A) read with 8(e) of A.P. Prohibit

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

SupremeToday

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