Nukala Subhashini, vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh,
2021 Latest Caselaw 1876 AP

         HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH : AMARAVATI


 HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE ARUP KUMAR GOSWAMI, CHIEF JUSTICE
                            &
          HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE C.PRAVEEN KUMAR

                        W.P. No.17728 of 2020


                        (Through video conferencing)

Nukala Subhashini, W/o Nukala Manohar,
Aged 33 years, R/o H.No.1-180, Koilakuntla
Village & Mandal, Kurnool District, Andrha
Pradesh-518134.

                                                       ..   Petitioner

                                  Versus

The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Chief
Secretary, General Administration Department,
A.P.    Secretariat  Building,     Velagapudi,
Amaravathi, Guntur District & 3 Others.

                                                        .. Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner              : Mr. D.Purnachandra Reddy

Counsel for Respondents                 : Mr. Yugandhar Reddy,
                                          representing Additional
                                          Advocate General No.1


                                 ORDER

Dt : 07.05.2021

(per C. Praveen Kumar, J.)

ORDER :

1. This petition, in the nature of Writ of Habeas Corpus, was filed

by the wife of the detenu, viz., Nukala Manohar Rao, son of

N.Krishna Murthy, who is lodged in Central Prison, Kadapa, praying

for release and to set him free, 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. By an order dated 07.08.2020, the Collector & District

Magistrate, Kurnool, passed the order of detention under Section

3(2) read with Section 3 (1) of Andhra Pradesh Prevention of

Dangerous Activities of Boot Leggers, Dacoits, Drug Offenders,

Goonda, Immoral Traffic Offenders and Land Grabbers Act, 1986, on

the ground that he is a bootlegger within the meaning of the Act

and that he is constantly involved in bootlegging activities in

Allagadda and Ahobilam Areas of Kurnool District City and became

dangerous to the lonely public in purview of A.P. Prohibition Act,

1995. The said order of detention was accorded approval by the

1st Respondent vide G.O.Rt. No.1517, on 01.10.2020, confirming the

detention of the detenu for a period of 12 months from the date of

his detention i.e., 09.08.2020, pursuant to the review and report,

dated 18.09.2020, submitted by the Advisory Board.

3. The grounds of detention served on the detenu refer to 14

incidents. Out of 14 incidents referred to in the grounds, except

incident Nos.11, 12 & 14, which were registered for the offences

punishable under Sections 188, 273 I.P.C., Section 20(2) of the

Cigarette and Other Tobacco Products Act, 2003 and Sections 26, 30

of Food Safety and Standard Act of Koilakuntla P.S.; Sections 188,

273 I.P.C., Section 20(b) of NDPS Act 1985 and Section 20(2) of

COTP Act of Koilakuntla P.S.; and Sections 188, 273, 328 read with

Section 34 I.P.C. and Section 20(2) of the Cigarette and Other

Tobacco Products Act, 2003 and Sections 26, 30 of Food Safety and

Standard Act of Koilakuntla P.S. respectively, all other cases were

registered against the detenu, for the offences punishable under

Sections 188, 273, 328 I.P.C. and the provisions of Food Safety and

Standard Act 2006.

4. Sri D.Purnachandra Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner,

mainly submits that the order of detention came to be passed on

vague and irrelevant grounds. He took us through the counter-

affidavit filed by the Collector & District Magistrate and the material

filed along with the counter to show that though initially the detenu

was detained as a bootlegger, but subsequently it was altered and

detained on the ground that he is a Drug offender, which according

to him, is sufficient to set aside the order of detention. He further

submits that though Crime No.17 of 2018 registred against the

detenu was quashed by this Court in Criminal Petition No.6134 of

2019 on 16.10.2019 itself, but the said fact was not brought to the

notice of the detaining authority.

5. Per contra, Sri Yugandhar Reddy, representing the office of

Additional Advocate General No.1, opposed the same. He submits

that having regard to the fact that the detenu is involved in 14

crimes, which are similar nature, the action of the authorities in

detaining him warrants no interference. In other words, he submits

that since he is a habitual offender, the authorities were justified in

passing the order of detention.

6. In order to appreciate the rival contentions, it is to be noted

that in paragraph No.2 of the initial order of detention dated

07.08.2020 it has been mentioned as under :

"WHEREAS, I am satisfied on the basis of the material placed before me that the said person is constantly indulging in boot-legging activities in Allagadda and Ahobilam Areas of Kurnool District City and committing offences and became dangerous to the lonely public in purview of A.P. Prohibition Act, 1995."

7. Subsequently, along with the counter-affidavit filed by the

Collector & District Magistrate, an order of detention dated

07.08.2020 was enclosed, wherein it is mentioned as under :

"WHEREAS, I am satisfied on the basis of the material placed before me that the said person is constantly indulging in drug offending activities in Koilakuntla, Allagadda, Sirvella and Nandyal Areas of Kurnool District City and committing offences and became dangerous to the lonely public in purview of A.P. Prohibition Act, 1995."

8. A reading of the two would indicate that in the first order of

detention, the detenu was alleged to have been indulging in

bootlegging activities in Allagadda and Ahobilam Areas of Kurnool

District City, whereas in the second order of detention the same was

altered stating that the detenu was indulging in drug offending

activities in Koilakuntla, Allagadda, Sirvella and Nandyal Areas of

Kurnool District City. From the above it is clear that not only the

nature of activity is different, but also the place of activities are

different, from what was mentioned in the earlier order. This

circumstances itself would show that the detaining authority was not

sure of the activities of the detenu and as such it can be said that

there was non-application of mind while passing the order of

detention.

9. Coming to the grounds of detenu, as seen from the record,

eleven out of fourteen grounds, relied upon by the detaining

authority, relate to cases registered under the penal provisions and

various provisions of Food Safety and Standard Act, 2006, while

ground Nos.11, 12 and 14 inter alia relate to NDPS Act and COTP

Act.

10. Under the Act, the words Boot-legger and Drug-offender are

defined as under :

"(b) "boot-legger" means a person, who distills, manufactures, stores, transports, imports, exports, sells or distributes any liquor, intoxicating drug or other intoxicant in contravention of any of the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Excise Act, 1968 (Act 17 of 1968) and the rules, notifications and orders made thereunder, or in contravention of any other law for the time being in force, or who knowingly expends or applies any money or supplies any animal, vehicle, vessel or other conveyance or any receptacle or any other material whatsoever in furtherance or support of the doing of any of the above mentioned things by himself or through any other person, or who abets in any other manner the doing of any such thing ;

(f) "drug-offender" means a person, who manufactures, stocks, imports, exports, sells or distributes any drug or cultivates any plant or does any other thing in contravention of any of the provisions of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 or the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 and the rules, notifications and orders made under either Act, or in contravention of any other Law for the time being in force, or who knowingly expends or applies any money in above mentioned things by himself or through any other

person or who abets in any other manner the doing of any such thug;"

11. A reading of the above two provisions does not anywhere

refer to the offences under Food Safety and Standard Act or under

Cigarette and Other Tobacco Products Act, 2003. The term, 'Drug-

offender' deals with the offences where a person manufactures,

stocks, imports, exports, sells or distributes any drug or cultivates

any plant or does any other thing in contravention of any of the

provisions of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 or the Narcotic

Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 and the rules,

notifications and orders made under either Act, or in contravention

of any other Law for the time being in force. The term 'Boot-legger'

deals with those persons who distill, manufacture, store, transport,

import, export, sell or distribute any liquor, intoxicating drug or

other intoxicant in contravention of any of the provisions of the

Andhra Pradesh Excise Act, 1968 (Act 17 of 1968) and the rules,

notifications and orders made thereunder, or in contravention of any

other law for the time being in force. Therefore, incidents referred

to in ground Nos.1 to 11, 13 and 14 do not fall either within the

meaning of the word 'Boot-legger' or 'Drug-offender' as defined

under the Act. At this stage, it would be appropriate to refer to the

judgment of this Court in W.P.No.23313 of 2020, dated 04.03.2021,

to show that even if one ground is irrelevant, the same would vitiate

the order of detention. It was also a case where the number of

crimes were registered against the detenu, not only under the

provisions of I.P.C. but also under Cigarette and Tobacco Product

Prohibition of Advertisement & Regulation of Trade and Commerce

Protection & Supply Distribution Act, 2003. Dealing with the same,

the Court held as under :

"16. Having regard to the judgments as noted above, 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, irrelevant grounds have been taken into consideration while passing the order of detention."

12. Since the grounds referred to above (except ground No.12) do

not come within the purview of 'Boot-legger' or 'Drug-offender', as

defined in the Act, it can be said that the detaining authority has

taken into consideration irrelevant grounds while passing the order

of detention. As observed earlier even if one ground is irrelevant,

the same would vitiate the order of detention as a whole.

Accordingly, we hold that the order of detention cannot be sustained

under law and therefore the same as well as the consequential

orders relating to the detention of the detenu stand quashed. The

detenu viz., Nukala Manohar Rao, son of N.Krishna Murthy, shall be

released forthwith, if not required in any other case.

13. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed. There shall be no

order as to costs.

Miscellaneous applications, pending, if any, shall stand closed.

ARUP KUMAR GOSWAMI, CJ                       C. PRAVEEN KUMAR, J

skmr