Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY, TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO, JJ.
Kadavala Bapanamma – Petitioner
Versus
The State of Andhra Pradesh – Respondent
Writ Petition No. 5764 of 2023
Decided On : 20-06-2023
Habeas Corpus - Andhra Pradesh Prohibition Act, 1968 - [7 (A), 8 (E)] - [Summary of Acts and Sections: The court discussed the legal provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Prohibition Act, 1968, specifically Sections 7 (A) and 8 (E) and their interpretation in relation to the detention order. The court emphasized the requirement to show that the acts of the detenue are prejudicial to the maintenance of public order or causing grave or widespread danger to life or public health. The court also highlighted the need for evidence of impermissible limits of harmful substances in the illicit liquor to justify preventive detention. The judgment referenced previous case law and the importance of personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution of India in reaching its decision.]
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner filed a writ petition for Habeas Corpus to challenge the detention order passed against her daughter under the Andhra Pradesh Prohibition Act, 1968. The detenue was involved in 5 cases related to illicit liquor under Sections 7 (A) and 8 (E) of the Act. The petitioner argued that the detention order was illegal and unsustainable as there was no evidence showing the detenue's acts were prejudicial to public order or causing grave danger to life or public health.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the detention order was unsustainable as the acts of the detenue in transporting and dealing with illicit liquor were not sufficient to justify preventive detention under the Act. The court emphasized the importance of personal liberty and ruled in favor of setting aside the impugned detention order, ordering the release of the detenue.
Issues: The issues involved the legality of the detention order under the Andhra Pradesh Prohibition Act, 1968, and whether the detenue's acts were prejudicial to public order or causing grave danger to life or public health.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the need to show that the detenue's acts were prejudicial to public order or causing grave danger to life or public health to justify preventive detention under the Act. The court also highlighted the requirement for evidence of impermissible limits of harmful substances in the illicit liquor to support the detention order.
Final Decision: The writ petition was allowed, and the impugned detention order was set aside. The detenue was ordered to be released unless required in connection with any other crime.
ORDER :
1. The writ petition for Habeas Corpus is filed to direct the 4th respondent to produce the detenue viz. Palika Chinna Papa W/o Ramana, who is the daughter of the petitioner, now detained in the Special Prison for Women, Rajamahendravaram, East Godavari District, as per the impugned detention order, dated 21.01.2023, passed by the 2nd respondent on the ground that she is involved in 5 cases registered under the Andhra Pradesh Excise Act, 1968, and set aside the impugned order of detention, dated 21.01.2023 passed by the 2nd respondent and set her at liberty.
2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader attached to the office of learned Additional Advocate General, appearing for the respondents.
3. The petitioner is the mother of Palika Chinna Papa W/o Ramana, who is now lodged in Special Prison for Women, Rajamahendravaram. About 5 cases were registered against her under Sections 7 (A), R/W 8 (E) of the Andhra Pradesh Prohibition (Amendment) Act, 2020. The details of the said crimes registered against her are as follows:
| S. No. | Cr. No. and Date | I.D. Liquor seized | Gist of C.E. opinion | C.E. Report and Date and Sample No. | Stage of the Case |
| 1. | Cr. No. 107/2022, Dated 20.01.2022, U/Sec 7-B r/w 8-B of Andhra Pradesh Prohibition (Amendment Act. No. 18 of 2020 of SEB, Station, RJVM South. | 30 Ltrs of ID Liquor | Illicitly Distilled liquor, Unfit for human consumption and injurious to health | C.E. No. 326/2022, Dated 15-02-2022 in S. No. 7251 | CC No is awaited |
| 2. | Cr. No. 268/2022, Dated 26.02.2022, U/Sec 7-B r/w 8-B of Andhra Pradesh Prohibition (Amendment Act No. 18 of 2020 of SEB, Station, RJVM South. | 05 Ltrs of ID Liquor | Illicitly Distilled liquor, Unfit for human consumption and injurious to health | C.E. No. 528/2 022, Dated 08.03.2022 in S. No. 10063 | CC number is awaited |
| 3. | Cr. No. 345/2022, Dated 13.03.2022, U/Sec 7-B r/w 8-B of Andhra Pradesh Prohibition (Amendment Act No. 18 of 2020 of SEB, Station, RJVM South. | 25 Ltrs of ID Liquor | Illicitly Distilled liquor, Unfit for human consumption and injurious to health | C.E. No. 774/2022, Dated 25-03-2022 in S. No. 11955 | CC number is awaited |
| 4. | Cr. No. 405/2022, Dated 30.03.2022, U/Sec 7-B r/w 8-B of Andhra Pradesh Prohibition (Amendment Act No. 18 of 2020 of SEB, Station, RJVM South. | 10 Ltrs of ID Liquor | Illicitly Distilled liquor, Unfit for human consumption and injurious to health | C.E. No. 1036/ 2022, Dated 02.05.2022 in S. No. 15790 | CC Number is awaited |
| 5. | Cr. No. 16/2023, Dated 16.01.2022, U/Sec 7-B r/w 8-B of Andhra Pradesh Prohibition (Amendment Act No. 18 of 2020 of SEB, Station, RJVM South. | 20 Ltrs of ID Liquor | Illicitly Distilled liquor, Unfit for human consumption and injurious to health | C.E. No. 123/2 023, Dated 17.01.2023 in S. No. 792 and 793 | Case is UI |
4. Alleging that the detenue is indulging in illicit manufacturing of liquor and transportation and sale of the same and that the said acts of the detenue, daughter of the petitioner, in repeatedly resorting to commission of the said crimes are prejudicial to the maintenance of the public order and also that it is causing grave and widespread danger to life or public health, the Collector and District Magistrate, East Godavari District, Rajamahendravarm, has passed an order of detention against her under Section 3(2) of the Prevention of Dangerous activities of Bootleggers, Dacoits, Drug offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic offenders and land Grabbers Act, 1986 (for short “the Act”). Thereafter, the said order was confirmed by way of issuing G.O.Rt.No. 576, dated 27.03.2023.
5. Aggrieved by the said detention orders that are passed against the detenue, daughter of the petitioner, the petitioner is before
The judgment established the principle that preventive detention under the Andhra Pradesh Prohibition Act, 1968 requires evidence showing that the detenue's acts are prejudicial to public order or ca....
The activities of a bootlegger must cause harm, danger, alarm, or a feeling of insecurity among the public or pose a grave or widespread danger to life or public health to be considered prejudicial t....
Detention order confirmed - Habitually indulged in manufacture, transportation and sale of illicit liquor - Acts and conduct attributed to petitioner were prejudicial to maintenance of public order o....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for credible material to justify detention under the MPDA Act, and the emphasis on the adverse effects of bootlegging activities on....
The court emphasized the importance of subjective satisfaction, expert opinion, and the adequacy of regular criminal laws in determining the validity of detention under the MPDA Act.
(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 ....
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
