Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana)
Sare Laxmaiah Naidu vs The State Of A.P., Rep. By Its Chief ... on 9 May, 2014
Author: Nooty Ramamohana Rao
Bench: Nooty Ramamohana Rao
THE HONBLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO WRIT PETITION Nos.6317 of 2014 09-05-2014 Sare Laxmaiah Naidu.Petitioner The State of A.P., Rep. by its Chief Secretary, General Admn.,(Law & Order.II) Dept., and others..Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri D.Purnachandra Reddy. Counsel for Respondents: Advocate General. <Gist : >Head Note: ? Cases referred: 1. (1986) 4 Supreme Court Cases 771 2. (1990) 2 Supreme Court Cases 1 3. (2011) 5 Supreme Court Cases 244 4. (2012) 2 Supreme Court Cases 72 5. (2012) 2 Supreme Court Cases 386 6. 2013 Crl.L.J. 585 7. 2013 (4) ALT 243 (D.B.) 8. 1970 (1) Supreme Court Cases 98 9. AIR 1972 Supreme Court 1749 10. AIR 1975 Supreme Court 1215. 11. (2003) 8 SCC 342 THE HONBLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO WRIT PETITION NO.6317 OF 2014 ORDER:
The petitioner herein challenges the legality and validity of the orders passed on 11.07.2013 by the 2nd respondent Collector and District Magistrate, YSR District, Kadapa in detaining his son-in- law Sri Machupalli Ramanaiah @ Pottabbi in terms of and in accordance with the provisions contained in Section 3 of A.P. Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Boot Leggers, Dacoits, Drug Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders and Land Grabbers Act, 1986 (for brevity referred to as Act, from now onwards), which order has been confirmed by the State Government through their orders contained in G.O.Rt.No.3819 General Administration (Law & Order.II) Department, dated 26.08.2013.
It is stated that the son-in-law of the writ petitioner has been ordered to be detained by the 2nd respondent- Collector and District Magistrate, YSR District, Kadapa. It is stated in the grounds of detention by the Collector that there are 5 cases booked by the Forest Department against the detenu for committing various offences under the A.P. Forest Act as well as Wildlife Protection Act, 1972 and the Biological Diversity Act, 2002. The main theme of the detention order sets out that the detenu along with several others has been indulging in a spate of illegal Red Sander tree felling activity and then smuggling the logs to secret and unknown destinations in India for their eventual transfer abroad. It is stated that in Sidhout, Produtur and Kadapa ranges there was a huge wealth of Red Sanders trees in the reserved forest. The detenu along with his other gang members has been indulging in illegally felling those trees and then secreting them to unknown destination for storage and thereafter quietly transporting the same across the boarders of the State at the first instance and there afterwards ensure that they cross the boarders of the country to find their way into international market. Apart from illegally felling the trees in the reserve forest unauthorisedly, the detenu has been indulging in organised crime in the reserve forest. The sequential involvement of the detenu in these cases, which were booked on 30.12.2012, 23.04.2013, 09.05.2013, 30.06.2013 and 02.07.2013 respectively clearly brings out not only the involvement of the detenu in a series of crimes but the frequency of the commission of offences by the detenu is clearly made out.
In those circumstances, the Collector passed the detention order on 11.07.2013 and the detenu was detained from 20th July, 2013 onwards. The Advisory Board constituted under Section 9 of the Act has reviewed the case on 19.08.2013 and after hearing the detenu and perusing the connected records, has confirmed the order of the Collector as there was sufficient cause for the detention of the detenu, Sri Machupalli Ramanaiah @ Pottabbi, s/o Machupalli Venkataiah, aged about 35 years, R/o Jandlavaram village, Mydukur Mandal, YSR District. The State Government after considering the entire material, once again independently confirmed the order of detention through its orders contained in G.O.Rt.N.3819 dated 26.08.2013. These orders gave rise to the present writ petition.
On behalf of the District Collector, a very detailed counter affidavit has been filed by the learned Advocate General. The Collector in his affidavit has narrated as to how he has firmed up his opinion the issue that the detenu deserves to be detained to prevent him from indulging in illegal activities any further. In all the cases the raid conducted by the Forest officials has resulted in retrieving several logs of Red Sanders of great value and only few people could be apprehended while the remaining others made good their escape. There is a clear pattern followed by the offenders, and those who were caught during the course of interrogation revealed the detailed involvement and complicity of the detenu. The frequency at which the offences have been commissioned has made the Collector satisfied that the detenu deserves to be detained, so as to prevent him in involving any further in forest offences.
Heard Sri D.Purnachandra Reddy, learned counsel for the detenu and Sri Y.N.Vivekananda, learned Special Government Pleader attached to the Advocate General on behalf of the respondents.
Sri D.Purnachandra Reddy, learned counsel, would submit that the detaining authority did not even mention that the detenu was indulging in any dangerous activities though a very lengthy detention order has been passed by him. It is also contended by Sri D.Purnachandra Reddy that illegal felling of Red Sander trees or carrying away any forest produce to outside the reserve forest area are all offences which are liable to be dealt with and handled by the competent criminal Court, in the ordinary course of business carried out for indulgence in such offences, and hence even if it is true that the detenu was involved in several forest offences, the orders of preventive detention cannot be passed by the Collector. Learned counsel for the petitioner would also urge that there is no proximity between the offences. First one mentioned by the Collector in his detention order allegedly took place on 30.12.2012, while the second one took place on 23.04.2013, hence there is no proximity between the offences and hence on this ground also the detention order passed by the Collector is liable to be interdicted. Most importantly, learned counsel Sri D.Purnachandra Reddy would submit that in all 5 cases were booked against detenu, of them 4th and 5th ones allegedly took place on 30.06.2013 and 02.07.2013, whereas the preventive detention order is passed almost immediately thereafter in a gap of 11 days on 11.07.2013. Of the 3 remaining offences, the 1st one is occasioned on 30.12.2012, that was more than six months prior to the order of detention, while the 2nd one allegedly occasioned on 23.04.2013 and the 3rd one on 09.05.2013. Therefore, the entire material has not been properly taken into account or consideration by the Collector before passing the detention Order. This apart learned counsel would contend that he has been granted bail in two cases and in so far as Crime No.84/2013-14, which was allegedly occurred on 02.07.2013, he was granted bail by the competent Criminal Court on 10.07.2013. This factum of the competent Criminal Court granting bail in favour of the detenu was not even placed before the detaining authority for it to take into account and consideration all relevant facts in the said matter. When once the competent criminal Court applies its mind and it is satisfied that the offence alleged against the detenu deserves granting him bail and accordingly grants him bail, there is no good reason for the detaining authority to ignore the said factum completely while passing the detention order. For the failure to take this aspect into account and consideration, the order of detention passed by the Collector is vitiated, pleads the learned counsel. The Collector has proceeded very mechanically while passing the detention order, urges the learned counsel. The order of the Collector in ordering for detention is obviously intended to prevent the detenu from securing his interests and liberty from being protected by the criminal Courts. It is also contended that nowhere the forest officials have caught hold of the detenu while he was actually indulging in any forest offence, much less was he noticed as indulging in any forest offence directly. The involvement of the detenu was deduced based upon the alleged confessional statement said to have been made by some other offenders. The statements made by an accused person to any police officer or Forest Officer is inadmissible in evidence and hence such conduct of deducing the involvement of the detenu in one forest offence or the other is wholly impermissible and that should not have formed any basis for passing the detention order. It is also contended that felling of trees in a reserve forest or carrying away the forest produce outside the limits of the forest without there being any valid permission to do so may form one forest offence or the other, but they are not offences for which the provisions of the Act can be invoked and in particular to describe the detenu as a Goonda under the provisions of the said Act. It is also contended that the translated copies of all the vital documents relied on by the detaining authority have not been supplied to the detenu and consequently the detenu was prevented from making an effective representation before the Advisory Board. Therefore, the detention order deserves to be interdicted for this reason also. Learned counsel Sri D.Purnachandra Reddy would further submit that the detention order literally amounts to pre-trial detention, thus depriving the liberty of an individual. For denying the liberty of an individual there must be stronger material available to the detaining authority. In the absence of any such material the detention order is liable to be declared as baseless one.
Sri D.Purnachandra Reddy, learned counsel for the detenu, has placed reliance upon the judgments rendered by the Supreme Court in Anant Sakharam Raut v. State of Maharashtra and another M.Ahamedkutty v. Union of India and another Rekha v. State of Tamil Nadu Rushikesh Tanaji Bhoite v. State of Maharashtra and others Munagala Yadamma v. State of Andhra Pradesh and others and also the Division Bench Judgments of this Court in V.Muragesh v. Collector and District Magistrate, Chittor and others Durgam Subramanyam v. Government of A.P., rep. by its Chief Secretary, Hyderabad and others and also the Judgment rendered in W.P.No.3917 of 2013 dated 26.03.2013.
Sri Y.N.Vivekananda, learned Special Government Pleader, would contend that the definition of the expression Goonda found in Section 2 (g) of the Act is squarely attracted in the case of detenu and hence the contention canvassed to the contra by the learned counsel for the detenu is ill-founded. Learned Special Government Pleader would further contend that if a person has been frequently and consistently indulging in one serious offence or the other, which would have greater impact upon the tranquillity and social order, such a person certainly deserves to be detained preventively. Learned Special Government Pleader would contend that the detaining authority has taken into account and consideration all relevant aspects of the matter and nothing has been omitted from objective consideration. Learned Special Government Pleader would point out that indulging in ordinary types and kinds of crimes is one aspect of the matter, but indulging in various offences and in particular illegal felling of red sanders is a grave crime against the entire society at large and the illegal felling activity spells doom to the environment protection efforts and conservative methods adopted by the State for protecting the forest area and hence a serious approach is certainly needed in this regard.
Sri Y.N.Vivekananda, learned Special Government Pleader, would place reliance on the judgments rendered by the Supreme Court in Arun Ghosh v. State of West Bengal , Kishori Mohan Bera v. The State of West Bengal and Jatindra Nath Biswas v. The State of West Bengal Before dealing with the rival contentions, it is extremely important to notice the principles relating to judicial review of ordes of preventive detention set out by the Supreme Court in Kishori Mohan Beras case and Jatindra Nath Biswass case (referred to supra) In Kishori Mohan Beras case (referred to supra), the Supreme Court in paragraph Nos.4 and 7 set out the principle as under:
4. The Act confers extraordinary power on the executive to detain a person without recourse to the ordinary laws of the land and to trial by courts. Obviously, such a power places the personal liberty of such a person in extreme peril against which he is provided with limited right of challenge only. There can, therefore, be no doubt that such a law has to be strictly construed. Equally also, the power conferred by such a law has to be exercised with extreme care and scrupulously within the bounds laid down in such a law.
7. In Dr. Lohia v. State of Bihar, (1966) 1 SCR 709 = ( AIR 1966 SC 740) this Court explained the difference between the three concepts of law and order, public order and the security of the State and fictionally drew three concentric circles, the largest representing law and order, the next representing public order and the smallest representing security of the State. Every infraction of law must necessarily affect order, but an act affecting law and order may not necessarily also affect the public order.
Likewise, an act may affect public order, but not necessarily the security of the State. These observations clearly bring out the distinction between each of the three concepts and the three imaginary concentric circles help to delineate the respective areas of the three concepts. A similar distinction between law and order and public order was also drawn in Pushkar Mukherjee v. State of West Bengal, (1969) 2 SCR 635 = (AIR 1970 SC 852 and a caution was there expressed that the expression 'public order' in S. 3 (1) of the Preventive Detention Act, 1950 did not take in every infraction of law and that every disturbance of law and order leading to disorder would not be sufficient invoke the extraordinary power under such a detention law, unless the act in question was such as endangered or was likely to endanger public order. (Emphasis is mine) In Jatindra Nath Biswass case (referred to supra), the Supreme Court in paragraph No.6 held as under:
It has been repeatedly, pointed out by this Court that even, if one ground, out of two or more is found to vitiate the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority, the order of detention falls. In such a situation one does not know whether the authority would have thought it fit to pass an order of detention only on the basis of the surviving ground or grounds. The order stands vitiated if some out of many grounds are found to have no nexus with the object of detention.
Emphasis is brought out.
With a view to prevent the Bootleggers, Dacoits, Drug- Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders and Land Grabbers indulging in dangerous activities prejudicial to the maintenance of Public Order, the State Legislature enacted the Act. Section 2 (g) defined the expression Goonda in the following words.
goonda means a person, who either by himself or as a member of or leader of a gang, habitually commits, or attempts to commit or abets the commission of offences punishable under Chapter XVI or Chapter XVII or Chapter XXII of the Indian Penal Code.
The expression Goonda, therefore, attracts men who either by themselves or as a member of a Gang or leader of a Gang habitually commit or abet the commission of offences under Chapter XVI or XVII or Chapter XXII of Indian Penal Code (hereinafter for short referred to as IPC).
Chapter XVI of the IPC dealt with various offences affecting the human body and the punishment to be provided therefor. Chapter XVII provided for various offences against property and the punishment for such offences, while Chapter XXII dealt with the offences relating to criminal intimidation, insult, annoyance and the punishment therefor.
If one were to go by the detention order, the Collector and District Magistrate has clearly indicated that the detenu was committing one offence or the other contained in Chapter XVII of IPC repeatedly and hence he has formed the opinion that the detenue was habitually committing or abetting the commission of such offences. Section 378 of IPC, which is included in Chapter XVII, dealt with the offence of theft. Explanation-1, provided thereunder, has clearly set out that a thing so long as it is attached to the earth, not being movable property, is not the subject of theft; but it becomes capable of being the subject of theft as soon as it is severed from the earth. The allegations made against the detenu clearly speak that he is a member and also a leader of a gang, who has been constantly and with regular periodicity indulging in illegal felling of the red sanders trees available in the reserve forest of Sidhout, Produtur and Kadapa ranges. Once a tree is felled, its severance with the mother earth takes effect. Thus, such acts can lead to the offence of theft provided for in Section 378 of IPC. Hence, if one is indulging in such offences with regular periodicity, it can be construed that he has become habituated to commission or abetment of commission of such offences. A particular conduct to become a habit, the same should get repeated periodically. In the instant case, the detention order disclosed as to how in six months period 5 offences could be detected pointing to the complicity of the detenu. I am, therefore, in agreement with the contention of Sri Y.N.Vivekananda that the detenue squarely answers the description of Goonda as was defined in Section 2 (g) of the Act and accordingly can be dealt with under Section 3 of the Act. Learned Counsel for the detenu is also not right in his submission that the offences are not proximately linked to each other. The 1st offence made a mention in the detention order is one, which was noticed on 30.12.2012, but the next one was detected on 23.04.2013, and a gap of 4 months period in between commissioning of the same nature of offences cannot be construed as separated by a long period of time. It is apt to remember that forest offences can be committed after gathering necessary information about the availability of source of material, a careful study of the degree of vigilance by the forest department officials, safe exit routes after commissioning the offence etc. The forest offences are required to be planned carefully before they are executed. Therefore, a gap of 4 months in between two similar offences does not mean that they are sporadic or isolated instances not having proximate connection with each other. Therefore, I do not have any hesitation to reject the contention canvassed by the learned counsel for the detenu in that regard.
Learned counsel for the detenu has also contended that the offences allegedly committed by the detenu are all one type of forest offence or the other, which are capable of being dealt with by prosecuting the detenu in the normal method. However, it will be important to notice that committing various offences with such periodicity is a serious matter. Entry into reserve forest and carrying away any forest produce therefrom are prohibited activities. Forests are preserved carefully by adopting conservative methods. The forest cover will have a direct impact upon the key elements of ecology. The adverse effect of the imbalance of ecology/environment would be felt by everyone in the society. Illegal felling of trees, grown over a long period of time in forest, will affect dynamically the delicate equilibrium maintained as a measure of protecting the environment. Therefore, forest offences are equally grave and dangerous offences as any other offence against the human body or property would be. The forest offences have to be dealt with an iron hand to prevent their recurrence. The limited financial resources available for the State will have to be prudently utilised for improving, preserving, protecting and conserving the forest cover. To the extent only absolutely necessary, the financial resources, which are otherwise scarce, are required to be deployed towards the salaries, allowance, pensions etc, for manning and employing the vigilance staff. Whereas more money should be spared for those who take to development/improvement works in reserve forests. As a consequence thereof, there will be minimal deployment of vigilance staff in reserve forest beats. Organised crime occurs with a view to loot and plunder forest wealth. Therefore, any effort made, which will go a long way in preventing the recurrence of forest offences is a wholly welcome measure. I am, therefore, of the opinion that there is no merit in the contention of the learned counsel for the detenu that the offences allegedly indulged in by the detenu are capable of being addressed by prosecuting him in the ordinary course of business before the Criminal Courts.
Equally, I find no merit in the contention canvassed by the learned counsel for the detenu that there is no valid basis or substratum for the detaining authority to pass the order of detention against the detenu. The detaining authority has clearly recorded in his order that the detenu is a dreaded and notorious Red Sanders wood smuggler. Further, the Collector recorded in his order as under:
The Red sanders (Pterocarpus santalinus) is an endemic timber species which occurs naturally only in the Districts of YSR, parts of Chittor, Nellore and Kurnool of Andhra Pradesh in the entire world. It is listed as Endangered Species in the Red Data book of IUCN.
Hence, with a view to prevent him from further indulging in dangerous activities of looting national wealth, the detention order was passed. Further, the contention that the Collector has not even mentioned that the activities allegedly involved in by the detenu are dangerous activities, is neither acacurate nor tenable.
Sri Y.N.Vivekananda, learned Special Government Pleader, is certainly right in his submission that the principle enunciated by the Supreme Court in Munagala Yadammas case (referred to supra) cannot be pressed into service for dealing with the forest offenders. The principle enunciated by the Supreme Court in Munagala Yadammas case gets attracted while dealing with petty offenders, but not those who indulge in large scale forest offences, the ill effects of which would be felt by the whole community at large, particularly when the task of apprehending the culprits is not an easy one.
In this context it would be appropriate to notice that in Arun Ghoshs case(referred to supra), the Supreme Court, after noticing the principle enunciated by it earlier in Dr. Ram Manohar Lohia v. State of Bihar [(1966) 1 SCR 709] relating to the distinction to be borne in mind between maintenance of law and order and its disturbance and maintenance of public order and its disturbance, has pointed out that public order is the even tempo of life of the community taking the country as a whole or even a specified locality and hence disturbance of public order is to be distinguished from acts directed against individuals which do not disturb the society to the extent of causing a general disturbance of public tranquility. It is further spelt out that it is the degree of disturbance and its effect upon the life of community in a locality which confirms whether the disturbance amounts only to a breach of law and order or breach of public order. The Supreme Court went on to point out that the activity of a man who indulges in breach of law and order, in its essential quality is not different from the act of another who indulges in disturbance to public tranquillity but it is the potentiality of the latter and its effect upon the public tranquillity, what distinguishes the latter from the earlier. When we apply this test, the events indulged in by the detenu narrated by the Collector would certainly appear to be acts of disturbance to public order and not merely effecting law and order. The conduct alleged against the detenu when viewed in the backdrop of repeated periodicity of one forest offence or the other would certainly disclose the ferocity and the fearsomeness unleashed by the detenue. The illegal acts of felling trees can perhaps in isolation, be tackled by taking recourse to the process of prosecuting the detenu. But certainly, the ferocious and dreaded activities carried on by the detenu require undertaking a measure like preventive detention.
However, learned counsel for the detenu has placed reliance upon the judgment rendered by the Supreme Court in Anant Sakharam Rauts case (referred to supra), wherein the Supreme Court has crisply stated in paragraph No.5 thereof as under:
We do not think it necessary to go into all the grounds urged before us by the petitioner's counsel in support of his prayer to quash the order of detention. The one contention strongly pressed before us by the petitioner's counsel is that the detaining authority was not made aware at the time the detention order was made that the detenu had moved applications for bail in the three pending cases and that he was enlarged on bail on January 13, 1986, January 14, 1986 and January 15, 1986. We have gone through the detention order carefully. There is absolutely no mention in the order about the fact that the petitioner was an undertrial prisoner, that he was arrested in connection with the three cases, that applications for bail were pending and that he was released on three successive days in the three cases. This indicates a total absence of application of mind on the part of detaining authority while passing the order of detention.
In M.Ahamedkuttys case (referred to supra) the Supreme Court has stated in paragraph No.25 as under:
Non-consideration of the bail order would have, therefore, in this case amounted to non-application of mind. In Union of India v. Manoharlal Narang ((1987) 2 SCC 241 : 1987 SCC (Cri) 311) the Supreme Court's interim order in pending appeal against High Court's quashing of a previous order of detention against the same detenu was not considered by the detaining authority while making the impugned subsequent order against him. By the interim order Supreme Court had permitted the detenu to be at large on condition of his reporting to the police station daily. It was held that non-consideration of the interim order which constituted a relevant and important material was fatal to the subsequent detention order on ground of non-application of mind. If the detaining authority considered that order one could not state with definiteness which way his subjective satisfaction would have reacted and it could have persuaded the detaining authority to desist from passing the order of detention. If in the instant case the bail order on condition of the detenu's reporting to the customs authorities was not considered the detention order itself would have been affected.
In Rushikesh Tanaji Bhoites case (referred to supra) the principle has been spelt out by the Supreme Court in Paragraph Nos.8, 9 and 10 in the following words:-
8. It would be, thus, seen that the order releasing the detenu on bail in the crime registered on 14-08-2010 and the order relaxing the bail condition were passed by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Dharangaon much before the issuance of detention order dated 10-1-2011.
However, the detention order or the grounds supplied to the detenu do not show that the detaining authority was aware of the bail order granted in favour of the dentenu on 15-8-2010.
9. In a case where the detenu is released on bail and is enjoying his freedom under the order of the court at the time of passing the order of detention, then such order of bail, in our opinion, must be placed before the detaining authority to enable him to reach at the proper satisfaction.
10. In the present case, since the order of bail dated 15-8-2010 was neither placed before the detaining authority at the time of passing the order of detention nor the detaining authority was aware of the order of bail, in our view, the detention order is rendered invalid. We cannot attempt to assess in what manner and to what extent consideration of the order granting bail to the detenu would have effected the satisfaction of the detaining authority but suffice it to say that non-placing and non-consideration of the material as vital as the bail order has vitiated the subjective decision of the detaining authority.
A Division Bench of this Court in V.Murageshs case (referred to supra) has set out the following in paragraph No.11:
Thus from the above, it is evident that out of the eight forest offences registered against the detenu, he was arrested and released on bail in five cases, while in three cases, he was not even arrested. But curiously, in the order of detention, respondent No.1-Detaining Authority has recorded that the detenu was released on bail in all the cases. This shows that respondent No.1-Detaining Authority, has not applied his mind to the facts of the case. . Inasmuch as the bail applications and the bail orders, which are vital documents, were not placed by the Sponsoring Authority before respondent No.1-Detaining Authority, to arrive at subjective satisfaction whether or not to pass order of detention under the Preventive Detention Law, and having regard to the settled law that if one of the grounds of detention, which formed the basis for passing the order of detention, is found to be bad, the order of detention is liable to be set aside, we are of the considered opinion that the order of detention passed by respondent No.1- Detaining Authority, as confirmed by respondent No.2- Government, cannot be sustained and is liable to be set aside.
Another Division Bench of this Court in Durgam Subramanyam case (referred to supra) has set out the following principle as under:
The fact of passing orders releasing the petitioner on anticipatory bail is not disputed by the counsel for the respondents. However, it is contended on their behalf that the petitioner failed to comply with the conditions of bail by not executing the bonds and not attending at the police station as directed. The said violation may be a ground for filing an application for cancellation of bail. But that by itself would not debar the petitioner from raising the said plea. This being a case where the life and liberty of an individual is at stake, there is nothing wrong in court looking into the material placed before it to find out as to whether all the relevant material was placed by the sponsoring authority before the detaining authority. A perusal of the grounds of detention would clearly show that in none of the cases, the fact of release of the petitioner on anticipatory bail was brought to the notice of the detaining authority.
As seen above the sponsoring authority did not place the conditional orders granting anticipatory bail before the detaining authority. That being the vital material which would have weighed with the detaining authority at the time of passing of detention order, we feel that the relevant material was suppressed by not placing the same before the detaining authority. The order of detention is liable to be set-aside on this ground alone. As the order of detention is set-aside on the first ground alone, there is no need for us to delve into the second and third contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner.
A careful perusal of the detention order does disclose that the detenu has been granted bail by the Criminal Court in the past. Significantly, the order of detention clearly noted the relevant facts, in this regard as under:
Machupalli Ramanaiah @ Pottabbi was arrested on 02.07.2013 by the Forest Range Officer, Sidhout for his involvement in O.R.No.84/2013-2014, Dt.02.07.2013 of Sidhout Range. Further on the file of O.R.No.84/2013-2014, Dt.02.07.2013 of Sidhout Range, The Forest Range Officer, Sidhout has filed PT warrant in OR.No.10/2013-14 in the Honble Court at Sidhout on 03.07.2013. As per the directions of the Honble Court, the accused Machupalli Ramanaiah @ Pottabbi, was produced before the Honble Court on 04.07.2013 and remanded subsequently to the Judicial Custody. The Forest Range Officer, Proddatur has filed P.T.Warrant in OR No.68/2012-13 in the Honble Court at Mydukur on 06.07.2013 and produced the accused Machupalli Ramanaiah @ Pottabbi, before the Honble Court on 09.07.2013 and sent to remand. Out of the Five (05) cases registered against him as mentioned above, he had already filed bail petitions in three cases in the respective Courts.
The detenu had been absconding for long time pending trials in may courts and he is in the habit of absconding for long period in the past till the detenu was arrested eventually on 02.07.2013 by the Forest Range Officer, Sidhout in connection with O.R.No.84/2013-2014, Dt.02.07.2013. Now the detenu is undergoing remand in the judicial custody at Central Jail, Kadapa.
Penal Laws have failed to curb his illegal activities. If the detenu comes out from prison on bail, he is likely to indulge in the similar activities which are detrimental to public order and therefore required to be prevented by a detention order.
Therefore, in the instant case, all relevant factors have been properly addressed by the detaining authority and he applied his mind to all the relevant facts. The detaining authority has assigned a valid and tenable reason as to why the detenu should be prevented to be left free, as he is likely to indulge in same or similar activities if he comes out on bail. More importantly, the sponsoring authority has placed the relevant material relating to moving bail applications by the detenu and also grant of bail in the past. Thereafter for the reasons assigned, the detaining authority has come to the conclusion that the detenu shall be preventively detained. Hence, the present case stands distinct from the above cited cases.
It is apt to notice that the Supreme Court in Union of India v. Paul Manickam held that if the detaining authority is aware of the fact that the detenu is in custody and the detaining authority is reasonably satisfied with cogent material that there is likelihood of his release and in view of his antecedent activities he must be detained to prevent him from indulging in such prejudicial activities, the detention order can validly be made.
Adverting to the contention canvassed by the learned counsel for the detenu that the detenu was never caught by the forest officials, but he was apprehended based upon the statements made by the some other accused persons, whose statements so obtained are inadmissible in evidence in a Criminal court, all I need to record is forest offences are seldom committed during broad day light and in public gaze either. Most of these offences can be noticed only after they are accomplished but not during the course of commission of offence itself. The reasons are not far to seek. Reserve forests are spread across vast and sometimes inhospitable terrain and most of the terrain is free from human habitation also. It is only based upon the traces, noticed during the subsequent period of routine check/watch they get detected. The information and/or intelligence to percolate to the departmental officials takes much longer time. That is the reason why the offenders get seldom caught at the scene of offence, but they get caught at far away removed place either for having stored the contraband material or while undertaking its illegal transportation. It is the subsequent interrogations, which lead the investigator to the site of the offences, most of the times. Therefore, there is no merit in the contention canvassed by the learned counsel for the detenu that the detenu was not caught actually while committing any of the forest offences. Material gathered during the course of investigation into a crime helps in detecting the role played by the other offenders and that is how the other offenders get noticed by the investigating agency for the role played by them in committing one offence or the other. That would be a question, which would be addressed in detail and properly by the competent Criminal Court. Hence, at this stage it is totally unnecessary for me to return any finding in that respect.
One of the submissions made by Sri D.Purnachandra Reddy, learned counsel for the detenu, that translated copies of the documents have not been made available to the detenu and hence he was handicapped and prejudiced in effectively making a representation before the advisory board, is demonstrated by Sri Y.N.Vivekananda, as factually incorrect. Along with the counter- affidavit of the detaining authority, a bunch of material papers are filed, showing that translated copies in Telugu language have been supplied to the detenu through the Jailer of Central Prison, Cherlapalli, where the detenu was interned. Therefore, there is no substance in the contention canvassed on behalf of the detenue in this regard. As was already noticed supra, the offences committed by the detenu are capable of posing a danger to the society at large and the delicate balance amongst various flora and fauna, which have symbiotic relationship amongst them, gets disturbed by the illegal felling of an endangered species of plant variety. The detenu has least concern towards the Red sander trees, it appears. It takes few decades for a tree to grow and then attain the requisite girth. Seldom trees get planted and nursed in reserve forest. Most of them germinate and survive on their own, thanks to the winds that carry the seeds, the underground moisture cover and the copious rainfall, which they receive in bounty. Even if a nursery for a particular variety of plants is maintained by the forest department, returns therefrom would be available after lapse of long period of time of 2 to 3 decades but not earlier thereto. Therefore, illegal felling of trees and the resultant plunder of such wealth does not get confined, in its impact on the economic front, but transcends beyond the tangible spheres. I am, therefore, convinced that for the offences allegedly indulged in by the detenu, he deserves to be detained, as a preventive measure from recurrence of such acts.
For the aforementioned reasons, I do not find any merit in the writ petition and accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed, but however without costs.
The miscellaneous petitions, if any pending in this writ petition, shall stand closed.
_______________________________________ JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO 09.05.2014