Challenging The Legal Validity Of ... vs Annareddy Hymavathi
2023 Latest Caselaw 3491 AP

     THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY
                                    AND
       THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO

                    WRIT PETITION NO.9555 OF 2023

ORDER:- (Per Hon'ble Sri Justice Cheekati Manavendranath Roy)


       Challenging the legal validity of the impugned order of

preventive    detention    dated    29.03.2023      passed      by   the   2nd

respondent, against the mother of the petitioner by name

Annareddy Hymavathi, which in turn was confirmed by issuance

of G.O.Rt.No.1098, dated 05.06.2023, the present writ petition

has been filed to set aside the same and to set the detenue at

liberty.

2. About three crimes were registered against the mother of the

petitioner by name Annareddy Hymavathi, who is detenue in this

writ petition. They are (i) Crime No.86 of 2012 for the offence

punishable under Section 20(b) r/w 8 (c) of the Narcotic Drugs

and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short "N.D.P.S. Act")

of Chirala Rural Police Station, (ii) Crime No.246 of 2021 for the

offences punishable under Section 8(c) r/w 20(b) of the N.D.P.S.

Act of Chirala Rural Police Station and (iii) Crime No.203 of 2022

for the offence punishable under Section 8(c) r/w 20(ii)(b) of the

N.D.P.S. Act of Bapatla Rural Police Station. All the aforesaid

crimes were registered against her on the ground that the detenue

was in illegal possession of the Ganja and has been indulging in

illegal transportation of the same.

3. Alleging that the detenue has been repeatedly indulging in

commission of the said crimes of illegal transportation of Ganja

and that her activities are prejudicial to the maintenance of public

order and also her activities are harmful to the health of the

public, on the recommendation made by the sponsoring authority

i.e. the 3rd respondent-Superintendent of Police, to pass an order

of preventive detention against her, to prevent her from

committing the similar nature of offences in future, the detaining

authority i.e. the 2nd respondent-District Collector and District

Magistrate passed the impugned order of preventive detention

against the mother of the petitioner. The said order of preventive

detention was confirmed by the Government in G.O.Rt.No.1098,

dated 05.06.2023.

4. The legal validity of the said order of preventive detention is

mainly questioned on the ground that it was passed by the 2nd

respondent-detaining authority, without any application of mind

and without being satisfied with the material that is placed before

him that there is likelihood of the petitioner committing the

similar nature of offences in future and that her activities are

prejudicial to the maintenance of public order or harmful to the

safety and health of the public.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that out of

the aforesaid three crimes that were registered against the mother

of the petitioner, in the first crime i.e. Crime No.86 of 2012 of

Chirala Rural Police Station, the detenue was already prosecuted

for the said offence and was in fact acquitted long back in the year

2014 itself. However, to substantiate the said version of the

petitioner that the detenue was acquitted in the said case, as the

petitioner did not produce any evidence or copy of the said

judgment, we have directed the petitioner on 10.07.2023 to

produce copy of the judgment of acquittal before the Court in

proof of her acquittal in the said case. Pursuant to the said

direction, a copy of the judgment of acquittal that was passed in

S.C.No.5 of 2023 on the file of learned Special Judge for N.D.P.S.

Act Cases-cum-I Additional Sessions Judge, Ongole, which is

arising out of Crime No.86 of 2012 of Chirala Rural Police Station

is produced by the petitioner. It is evident from the said copy of

the judgment, which is now produced before the Court along with

memo, that the mother of the petitioner by name Annareddy

Hymavathi was acquitted long back in the said case on

02.06.2014 itself. Even though she was acquitted in the said

case, still the said crime is shown as the basis along with other

crimes for passing the impugned order of preventive detention. It

is really beyond our apprehension as to how the sponsoring

authority and detaining authority could show the said crime in

Crime No.86 of 2012 of Chirala Rural Police Station as the basis

for passing an order of preventive detention, when the detenue

was already acquitted long back in the year 2014 in the said case.

The said fact by itself is sufficient to show the non-application of

mind by both the sponsoring authority and the detaining

authority in passing the impugned order of preventive detention

against the detenue.

6. Further, mere pendency of the three crimes or two crimes

against a person by itself is not a valid ground for passing any

order of preventive detention. The detaining authority has to

record his satisfaction on the basis of the material placed before

him that on account of pendency of such crimes that there is

every likelihood of the detenue committing the similar nature of

offences in future which may be prejudicial to the maintenance of

public order or hazardous to the safety, health and life of the

public. The impugned order is devoid of any such reasons as to

what is the material that is placed before the detaining authority,

how he is satisfied with the said material that the detenue is likely

to commit the said crimes of similar in nature in future and how

the said activities would be prejudicial to the maintenance of

public order or how it would affect the safety, health and life of the

public. An order sans any such reasons relating to legal

requirements cannot be sustained.

7. It is now well settled law that any order that is passed under

the Andhra Pradesh Prevention of Dangerous Activities of

Bootleggers, Dacoits, Drug Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic

Offenders and Land-Grabbers Act, 1986, has to be tested on the

anvil of Article 21 of the Constitution of India, which guarantees

the personal liberty of any citizen of the country as any order of

preventive detention would have the effect of depriving the

individual of his personal liberty which is a valuable and precious

right guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

When the impugned order is tested as per the parameters of the

settled law relating to protection and preserving the personal

liberty of an individual, certainly the impugned order do not stand

for any such judicial scrutiny to uphold the same. As noticed

supra, the very fact that they made the Crime No.86 of 2012 still a

ground for passing the impugned order when the detenue was

already acquitted long back in the said case, is itself sufficient to

show the non-application of mind by the detaining authority and

the sponsoring authority.

8. Therefore, the Writ Petition is allowed setting aside the

impugned order of preventive detention, dated 29.03.2023, passed

against the mother of the petitioner viz., Annareddy Hymavathi

and the consequential G.O.Rt.No.1098, dated 05.06.2023 that

was issued confirming the said order. The detenue by name

Annareddy Hymavathi shall be set at liberty forthwith, if not

required in any other case. There shall be no order as to costs.

Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, in the Writ Petition,

shall stand closed.

______________________________________________ JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY

______________________________________ JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO Date: 17.07.2023 ARR/KBN

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY

AND

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO

WRIT PETITION NO.9555 OF 2023

Date: 17-07-2023

ARR/KBN