Blog

Andhra Pradesh High Court – Amravati

R Suchithra vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh

BENCH – THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.V.S.S. SOMAYAJULU AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V. SRINIVAS

WRIT PETITION No. 4202 of 2023

DATE OF JUDGEMENT – 9 MAY 2023

INTRODUCTION –

This case is about the writ petition which is challenging the order of the detention of the husband of the petitioner.

The relevant provision followed in this case are as follows –

A.P. Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Dacoits, Drug Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders and Land Grabbers Act, 1986.

Section – 3 Power to make order detaining certain persons: –

(1) The Government finds if any boot-legger, dacoit, drug-offender, goonda, immoral traffic offender or land-grabber is acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order and if it is necessary so to do, can make an order directing that such person be detained.

(2) A District Magistrate or Commissioner of Police may also, if satisfied as provided in subsection (1), exercise the powers granted by the said subsection if the Government is of the opinion that doing so is necessary considering any circumstances existing or likely to exist in any area within the local limits of their jurisdiction. The Government may make this determination by issuing an order in writing.

FACTS –

The Collector and District Magistrate, Chittoor District, while categorizing the detenue as a “Bootlegger” passed the impugned order of detention.

The detenue was put within the definition of Section 3(1) and 3(2) of the A.P. Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Dacoits, Drug Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders and Land Grabbers Act, 1986.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the detenue is in judicial custody at the time of passing of detention order. the representation submitted by the petitioner for recall of detention order was rejected by the 2nd respondent (Collector and District Magistrate, Chittoor District).

The learned counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that the acts of the detenue is are prejudicial to the public order who is a bootlegger who is selling distilled liquor, which is unfit for human consumption and injurious to health and that having regard to the gravity of the offences, the orders impugned in the writ petition do not warrant any interference of this Court and the present writ petition is not maintainable.

The court observed that as ordinary criminal law is adequate to deal with the offences, preventive detention without subjecting an individual to the procedure of free and fair trial would infringe the fundamental right to life and liberty guaranteed under Chapter III of Constitution of India. These factors are missing in the impugned order.

The detention order was passed when the detenue was in judicial custody basing on five cases that were registered against him and he was granted bail in all those cases. The learned counsel for the respondents did not file a counter to deny the case of petitioner. The detaining authority as well sponsoring authority has not taken into consideration the fact that the detenue was on bail in all those cases and no opinion has been expressed as to whether the preventive detention of detenue was essential or not, and no such discussion was made in the order.

JUDGEMENT –

The Court held that the orders impugned were made without proper application of mind and there is a serious procedural violation. The order of detention does not show any material to justify that the detenue is a ‘Bootlegger’ whose activities would be actually prejudicial to public order.

This Writ Petition is allowed setting aside the order of detention passed by the 2nd Respondent (Collector and District Magistrate, Chittoor District) dated 14.10.2022. The detenue namely Francis Babu @ Francis @ Frances, is directed to be released forthwith by the respondents if the detenue is not required in any other cases.

JUDGEMENT REVIEWED BY HARSHIT JAIN

Click here to view judgement

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”