Point of Law: Detention - Non-consideration of the material, namely, acquittal in the two out of four crimes, in our view, does not vitiate the order of detention, as the said crimes were never made the basis for passing the order of detention

ORDER :

C. Praveen Kumar, J.

1. Challenging the Order Of Detention passed by the 2nd Respondent i.e., the Collector & District Magistrate, Chittoor, on 18.08.2020 under Section 3(2) read with Section 3(1) of the Andhra Pradesh Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Dacoits, Drug Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders and Land Grabbers Act, 1986 (Act 1/1986) on the ground that the detenu is a bootlegger within the meaning of the Act, and that his activities are prejudicial to the maintenance of public order, the present Writ Petition is filed seeking issuance of a writ of Habeas Corpus.

2. The detenu was arrested on 19.08.2020. The grounds of detention was served on him, referring to three incidents registered under Section 7A read with 8(e) of the Andhra Pradesh Prohibition Act, 1995. In order to show that the detenu has no respect for law and that his activities could not be controlled by invoking the normal legal procedure, the grounds of detention also refer to four other crimes registered under the very same sections of law.

3. In exercise of powers conferred under sub-section (3) of Section 3 of the Act, the Government approved the detention order vide proceedings dated 29.08.2020 within 12 days. As required under Section 10 of the Act, the case of the detenu was placed before the Advisory Board for its consideration and to submit its report to the Government under Section 11(1) of the said Act. On 30.09.2020, the Advisory Board reviewed the case of the detenu through video conference and after hearing the detenu and his father, who is the petitioner herein, and after perusing the material on record, opined that there is sufficient cause for detention of the detenu. The report dated 30.09.2020 was sent to the Government. In exercise of the power conferred under sub-section (1) of Section 12 read with Section 13 of the Act, the Government issued proceedings dated 12.10.2020, ordering detention of the detenu for a period of one year from the date of detention i.e., 19.08.2020.

4. Mr. D. Purnachandra Reddy, learned counsel for the Petitioner representing Mr. Suresh Kumar Reddy Kalava, mainly submits that the order of detention has been passed on vague, irrelevant and non-existant grounds. Relying upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Munagala Yadamma v. State of Andhra Pradesh and Others, (2012) 2 Supreme Court Cases 386, the counsel would contend that an offence committed by the petitioner, which attracts punishment under A.P. Prohibition Act, 1995 should have been dealt with under the said law and taking recourse to preventive detention laws is unwarranted. The counsel further submits that the order of detention is vitiated as the fact of detenu being acquitted in two of four cases referred to in the grounds of detention was not placed before the detaining authority. He further submits that the representation made by the Petitioner was never considered by the authorities till date. This abnormal delay in not considering the representation made by the detenu is sufficient to quash the detention order.

5. On the other hand, Mr. Syed Khader Masthan, learned Government Pleader representing the respondents filed a detailed counter explaining their stand. It is stated that merely because there is reference to some of the crimes registered against the detenu in the grounds of detention, does not by itself make the detention order invalid, even if relevant material in respect of those crimes is not considered by the detaining authority. In other words, he would submit that the detaining authority relied only on three crimes i.e., Crime No. 140/2019 dated 05.06.2019; Crime No. 223/2019 dated 26.08.2019 and Crime No. 108/2020 dated 04.07.2020, for passing the order of detention. Insofar as non-considering the representation of the detenu, it is submitted that there is absolutely no material on record to show that the said representation was made by the detenu or given by the Petitioner, to the jail authoriti