Back
ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT AT AMARAVATI
U.Durga Prasad Rao, B.V.L.N.Chakravarthi, JJ.
Kasani Venkateswaramma – Appellant
Versus
State of Andhra Pradesh – Respondent
Writ Petition No. 18041 of 2022
Decided On : 24-08-2022
PREVENTIVE DETENTION - BOOTLEGGER - ANDHRA PRADESH PREVENTION OF DANGEROUS ACTIVITIES OF BOOT-LEGGERS, DACOITS, DRUG OFFENDERS, GOONDAS, IMMORAL TRAFFIC OFFENDERS AND LAND GRABBERS ACT, 1986 - SECTION 3(2) PROVISO, 3(3), 12 - CONFIRMATION OF DETENTION ORDER BY GOVERNMENT - TIME LIMIT - INTERPRETATION.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner challenged the detention of her husband under the Andhra Pradesh Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Boot-Leggers, Dacoits, Drug Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders and Land Grabbers Act, 1986 (Act, 1986) on the grounds that the detention order was passed without application of mind, in violation of his life and personal liberty, and that the preventive detention was unwarranted, unjust, and illegal. The petitioner also argued that the Government had not confirmed the detention order within the time limit prescribed by the Act.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the Government must take a decision on the confirmation of the detention order within three months from the initial detention, as per the provisions of Section 3(2) proviso and Section 12 of the Act, 1986. In the present case, the Government had not taken a decision within the said time limit, rendering the detention of the detenu unjust and illegal.
Issues: 1. Whether the detention order was passed without application of mind and in violation of the detenu's life and personal liberty. 2. Whether the preventive detention was unwarranted, unjust, and illegal. 3. Whether the Government had confirmed the detention order within the time limit prescribed by the Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court relied on the decisions in Nirmal Kumar Khandelwal v. Union of India and Shibapada Mukherjee v. State of West Bengal to hold that the Government must take a decision on the confirmation of the detention order within three months from the initial detention. The Court interpreted Section 3(2) proviso and Section 12 of the Act, 1986 to imply a time limit of three months for the Government to confirm the detention order.
Final Decision: The Court allowed the writ petition, set aside the detention order, and directed the release of the detenu.
JUDGMENT
U.DURGA PRASAD RAO, J. - In this writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the petitioner challenging the detention of her husband Sri Kasani Venkata Satyanarayana @ Konda S/o Satyanarayana under orders of detention in Rc.No.REV-CSECOPDL(PRC)/1/2022-SA-(C1)-KCO, dtd. 4/5/2022 passed by the 2nd respondent-District Collector and District Magistrate, Machilipatnam and prayed to direct the respondent authorities to set the detenu at liberty forthwith.
2. The 2nd respondent passed the impugned detention order against the detenu Kasani Venkata Satyanarayana @ Konda S/o Satyanarayana exercising the powers vested in him under Sec. 3(1) & (2) 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 "Act, 1986") treating the detenu as "BootLeggar" under Sec. 2(b) of the Act, 1986 and on the subjective satisfaction that the detenu is acting and also calculated to act in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order since he is involved in the following five cases:
3. In the grounds of detention, the synopsis of each case has been mentioned as follows:
(a) Ground No.1: (Crime No.212/2020, dt: 4/9/2020 of the Kruthivennu Police Station u/S 7(B) r/w 8(B) of the Andhra Pradesh Prohibition (Amendment) Act, 2020)
On 4/9/2020 at 18.30 hrs, the S.I of Police, Kruthivennu PS along with staff rushed to Kunkudu Chettla Dibba in the outskirts Podu H/o Nidamarru Village and found the detenu manufacturing ID liquor in aluminum vessels and kept already manufactured ID liquor of about 5 liters in plastic bag. The S.I and his staff arrested the detenu and as there were no independent mediators, prepared occurrence report and seized the contraband and registered Crime No.212 of 2020 for the offences U/s 7(B) r/w 8(B) of the Andhra Pradesh Prohibition (Amendment) Act, 2020.
Later the detenu was enlarged on bail. Charge-sheet was filed before learned Judicial First Class Magistrate, Bantumilli. (b) Ground No.2: (Crime No.227/2021, dt: 16/6/2021 of the Kruthivennu Police Station U/s 7(B) r/w 8(B) of the Andhra Pradesh Prohibition (Amendment) Act, 2020)
On 16/6/2021 at 19.00 hrs. the S.I of Police, Kruthivennu PS, along with staff rushed to Ramalayam in the outskirts of Podu H/o Nidamarru Village and found the detenu and other person by name Borra Balaji, S/o Swamy having two plastic cans which contain 10 liters each of ID Liquor. The S.I and his staff arrested the detenu and Borra Balaji and as there were no independent mediators, prepared occurrence report and seized the contraband and registered Crime No.227 of 2021 for the offences U/s 7(B) r/w 8(B) of the Andhra Pradesh Prohibition (Amendment) Act, 2020. Later the detenu and Borra Balaji were enlarged on bail. Charge-sheet was filed before learned Judicial First Class Magistrate, Bantumilli.
(c) Ground No.3: (Crime No.322/2021, dt: 11/9/2021 of the Kruthivennu Police Station U/s 7(B) r/w 8(B) of the Andhra Pradesh Prohibition (Amendment) Act, 2020)
On 11/9/2021 at 19.30 hrs, the S.I of Police, Kruthivennu PS, along with staff rushed to detenu's house of Podu H/o Nidamarru Village and found the detenu and other person by name Nadkuditi Pothuraju, S/o Naga Bhushanam having two plastic cans containing 5 liters each of ID Liquor. The S.I and his staff arrested the detenu and Nadkuditi Pothuraju and as there were no independent mediators, prepared occurrence report and seized the contraband and registered Crime No.322 of 2021 for the offences U/s 7(B) r/w 8(B) of the Andhra Pradesh Prohibition (Amendment) Act, 2020. Later the detenu and Nadkuditi Pothuraju were enlarged on bail. Charge-sheet was filed before learned Judicial First Class Magistrate, Bantumilli.
(d) Ground No.4: (Crime No.454/2021, dt:20/12/2021 of the Kruthivennu Police Station U/s 7(B) r/w 8(B) of the Andhra Pradesh Prohibition (Amendment) Act, 2020)
On 20/12/2021 at 11.00 hrs, the S.I o
The Government must take a decision on the confirmation of the detention order within three months from the initial detention, as per the provisions of Section 3(2) proviso and Section 12 of the Andh....
(1) Preventive Detention - Power of preventive detention is qualitatively different from punitive detention - An order of preventive detention, may be made before or during prosecution - Pendency of ....
The satisfaction of the authorities under Section 3 of the Andhra Pradesh Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Boot Leggers, Dacoits, Drug Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic offenders and Land Grab....
The Detaining Authority must consider the bail applications and bail orders along with the record and form an opinion as to whether preventive detention is essential, especially when the detenue was ....
Preventive detention orders must consider the detenu's existing custody and provide cogent reasons for necessity; failure to do so renders the order illegal.
Preventive detention under the Karnataka Act is valid when supported by substantial evidence of threats to public order, and procedural safeguards are adhered to.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
