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

2021 Supreme(AP) 79

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
ARUP KUMAR GOSWAMI, C. PRAVEEN KUMAR, JJ.
Annam Venkatakrishnaraju S/o. Annam Rama Rao - Petitioner
Versus
The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary - Respondents
WRIT PETITION No.23231 of 2020
Decided On : 04-03-2021

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr. P.V.N. Kiran Kumar
For the Respondent: Mr. Syed Khader Masthan

Point of law: Detaining authority has not only considered Section 379 IPC but also taken into consideration Section 20 of Forest Act, which is not covered by the provisions of the Act. Therefore, in such a situation, the entire order as passed by the authority has to be struck down.

Headnote:

Andhra Pradesh Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Dacoits, Drug Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders and Land Grabbers Act, 1986 – Sections 2, 3 – Writ of Habeas Corpus – Order Of Detention – Petition, in the nature of Writ of Habeas Corpus, was filed by the brother of the detenu, viz., ‘Annam Sudhakar’, who is lodged in Central Prison, Rajamahendravaram, East Godavari District, praying for production of the detenu before this Court, after declaring his detention under Andhra Pradesh Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Dacoits, Drug Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders and Land Grabbers Act, 1986 as unconstitutional and illegal.

Finding of court: Personal liberty of an individual is sacrosanct. Personal liberty has been kept in a very high pedestal in our constitutional scheme and this Court has a solemn duty to protect an individual against illegal and arbitrary detention. – As the personal liberty of a person has to be jealously protected, the Court has to scrutinise with utmost care and caution as to whether the requirement of law has been meticulously followed and where such requirement of law is breached even in the slightest measure, the Court has to strike down the order of detention. – It is well settled that grounds of detention must be pertinent and not irrelevant, proximate and not stale, precise and not vague. – Irrelevance, staleness and vagueness are vices any single one of which is sufficient to vitiate a ground of detention and a single vicious ground is sufficient to vitiate an order of detention. – It is crystal clear that even if one ground is irrelevant, the same would vitiate the detention order as a whole. – Admittedly, in the instant case, an irrelevant ground has been taken into consideration while passing the order of detention. – Detention order cannot be sustained in law and, therefore, the same is set aside and quashed

Result: Writ Petition Allowed

ORDER :

Arup Kumar Goswami, J.

This petition, in the nature of Writ of Habeas Corpus, was filed by the brother of the detenu, viz., ‘Annam Sudhakar’, who is lodged in Central Prison, Rajamahendravaram, East Godavari District, praying for production of the detenu before this Court, after declaring his detention under Andhra Pradesh Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Dacoits, Drug Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders and Land Grabbers Act, 1986 (for short, ‘the Act’), as unconstitutional and illegal.

2. The respondent No.3/District Collector, Krishna District, Machilipatnam, passed an order on 08.09.2020 under Section 3(2) read with Section 3(1) of the Act, treating the detenu as a ‘Goonda’ under Section 2(g) of the Act and directing to lodge him in Central Prison, Rajamahendravaram, East Godavari District.

3. The Government had accorded approval of the detention order under Section 3(3) of the Act, on 16.09.2020. The Advisory Board, on 15.10.2020, recorded its opinion that there is sufficient cause for detention. Subsequently, on 27.10.2020, respondent No.2/Chief Secretary, Government of Andhra Pradesh, in exercise of powers conferred under Section 12(1) read with Section 13 of the Act, confirmed the order of the detention made by the Collector and District Magistrate, Krishna District, Machilipatnam and directed that the detention of the detenu be continued for a period of 12 months from the date of his detention, i.e., from 04.09.2020.

4. Reference was made to 11 cases in the grounds of detention, and the same read as follows:

    “1) Cr.No.135 of 2017, u/s.273, 420 IPC and Sec.5 & 22 of Cigarette & Tobacco Product Prohibition of Advertisement & Regulation of Trade and Commerce Protection & Supply Distribution Act, 2003 of Gampalagudem PS.

2) Cr.No.154 of 2017, u/s.420, 273 r/w.34 IPC and Sec.5 & 22 of Cigarette & Tobacco Product Prohibition of Advertisement & Regulation of Trade and Commerce Protection & Supply Distribution Act, 2003 of Gampalagudem PS.

3) Cr.No.147 of 2018, u/s.273, 420 IPC and Sec.5 & 22 of Cigarette & Tobacco Product Prohibition of Advertisement & Regulation of Trade and Commerce Protection & Supply Distribution Act, 2003 of Gampalagudem PS.

4) Cr.No.20 of 2019, u/s.273, 420 IPC and Sec.5 & 22 of Cigarette & Tobacco Product Prohibition of Advertisement & Regulation of Trade and Commerce Protection & Supply Distribution Act, 2003 of Gampalagudem PS.

5) Cr.No.53 of 2019, u/s.273, 420 r/w.34 IPC and Sec.5 & 22 of Cigarette & Tobacco Product Prohibition of Advertisement & Regulation of Trade and Commerce Protection & Supply Distribution Act, 2003 of Gampalagudem PS.

6) Cr.No.233 of 2019, u/s.273, 420 IPC and Sec.5 & 22 of Cigarette & Tobacco Product Prohibition of Advertisement & Regulation of Trade and Commerce Protection & Supply Distribution Act, 2003 of Gampalagudem PS.

7) Cr.No.235 of 2019, u/s.273, 420 r/w.34 IPC and Sec.5 & 22 of Cigarette & Tobacco Product Prohibition of Advertisement & Regulation of Trade and Commerce Protection & Supply Distribution Act, 2003 of Gampalagudem PS.

8) Cr.No.42 of 2020, u/s.270, 273, 328 r/w.34 IPC and Sec.5 & 22 of Cigarette & Tobacco Product Prohibition of Advertisement & Regulation of Trade and Commerce Protection & Supply Distribution Act, 2003 of Gampalagudem PS.

9) Cr.No.314 of 2020, u/s.273, 328, 420 r/w.34 IPC and Sec.5(1) & 22 of Cigarette & Tobacco Product Prohibition of Advertisement & Regulation of Trade and Commerce Protection & Supply Distribution Act, 2003 of Gampalagudem PS.

10) Cr.No.355 of 2020, u/s.34(1)(a)(i) of the A.P. Excise Amendment Act, 2020 of Gampalagudem PS.

11) Cr.No.405 of 2020, u/s.273, 328, 420 IPC and Sec.5(1) & 22 of Cigarette & Tobacco Product Prohibition of Advertisement & Regulation of Trade and Commerce Protection & Supply Distribution Act, 2003 of Gampalagudem PS.

5. Section 2(g) of the Act defines ‘Goonda’ as under:

“Goonda” means a person, who either by himself or as a member of or leader of a gang, habitually commits, or

        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