Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Karanam Janaki vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh, on 14 March, 2024
Author: U.Durga Prasad Rao
Bench: U.Durga Prasad Rao
APHC010530572023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
THURSDAY, THE FOURTEENTH DAY OF MARCH
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE U.DURGA PRASAD RAO
THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA
WRIT PETITION NO: 27387/2023
Between:
Karanam Janaki ...PETITIONER
AND
The State of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S)
The Court made the following order:
U.DURGA PRASAD RAO, J:
Petitioner prays for writ of Habeas Corpus on the ground that her husband Karanam Srinivas @ Rajendra Nagar Vasu @ Vasu, was illegally detained pursuant to the proceedings in Roc.No.M1(BOM PS)/465369/2023, dated 06.07.2023 of the 2nd respondent as confirmed in G.O.Rt.No.1788, General Administration (SC.I) Department, dated 07.09.2023 by the 1st respondent and therefore the said detention order may be declared as illegal and consequently respondents may be directed to release the detenue.
2. The petitioner's case is that the 2nd respondent vide order dated 06.07.2023 passed the detention order against Karanam Srinivas @ Rajendra Nagar Vasu @ Vasu, having taken into consideration the following 16 cases in which the detenue was involved treating him as "Goonda" as defined U/s 2(g) of the Andhra Pradesh Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Dacoits, Drug Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders and Land Grabbers Act, 1986 (1 of 1986) [for short, 'the Act 1 of 1986'].
1. Cr.No.167/2008, U/s 461, 380 IPC of I Town CCS, Rajamahendravaram.
2. Cr.No.385/2008, U/s 302, 307 r/w 34 IPC of I Town L&O PS, Rajamahendravaram.
3. Cr.No.260/2015, U/s 448, 384 r/w 511, 324, 506 r/w 34 IPC of I Town PS, Rajamahendravaram.
4. Cr.No.367/2015, U/s 366(A), 370, 370(A), 372, 373, 376(D) IPC, Sec.3 of POCSO Act, 5, 6 of ITP Act of III Town (L&O) PS, Rajamahendravaram.
5. Cr.No.26/2016, U/s 324, 452, 427, 384, 506 r/w 34 IPC of I Town (L&O) PS, Rajamahendravaram.
6. Cr.No.118/2016, U/s 341, 365, 376(D), 323, 506, 338 r/w 34 IPC of I Town (L&O) PS, Rajamahendravaram.
7. Cr.No.441/2016, U/s 120-B, 109, 212, 302 r/w 34 IPC of III Town (L&O) Police, Rajamahendravaram.
8. Crime No.120/2017, U/s.384, 506 r/w 34 IPC of I Town L&O PS, Rajamahendravaram.
9. Crime No.67/2018 U/s.324 r/w 34 IPC of Bommuru PS
10. Crime No.616/2019, U/s.363, 323, 506(2), 384 r/w 34 IPC of Bommuru PS
11. Crime No.619/2019, U/S.399 IPC of Bommuru PS
12. Crime No.809/2019, U/S.399 IPC of Bommuru PS
13. Crime No.203/2020, U/s. 120-B, 307, 397, 398, 506 IPC of Bommuru PS
14. Crime No.305/2020, U/s.399 IPC of I Town (L&O) PS, Rajamahendravaram.
15. Crime No.284/2022, U/s.8(c) r/w 20(b)(ii)(c) of NDPS Act of Kovvuru Town PS.
16. Cr. No.145/2023, U/s.395 IPC of I Town (L&O) PS, Rajamahendravaram.
Subsequently the Government have confirmed his detention vide proceedings in G.O.Rt.No.1788, General Administration (SC.I) Department, dated 07.09.2023.
Hence the writ petition.
3. 2nd respondent filed counter and opposed the writ petition.
4. Heard Sri Y. Sudhakar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Special Government Pleader representing learned Advocate General for respondents.
5. Though several grounds raised, however on one main ground learned counsel for the petitioner argued that out of 16 cases considered for issuing detention order, in one case i.e., Cr.No.284/2022 of Kovvuru Town PS, the detenue allegedly committed offences U/s 8(b) r/w 20 (b)(ii)(c) of NDPSA Act and even if this case admitted to be true, will not satisfy the legal criteria for categorizing the detenue as a goonda under the provisions of the P.D. Act, inasmuch as, the offences U/s 8(b) r/w 20 (b)(ii)(c) of NDPSA Act do not fall within the definition of goonda as per Section 2(g) of the Act 1 of 1986. Therefore, the detention since ordered on irrelevant material is vitiated by law. In this context, he placed reliance on Annam Venkatakrishnaraju v. State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Department of Home1. He thus prayed to set aside the detention order.
6. In oppugnation, learned Special Government Pleader argued that the detenue was habitually involved in 7 cases coming under Chapter XVI and XVII of IPC and thus spoiled the public peace and tranquility in the vicinity and involved in the acts of violence repeatedly and therefore, his activities fall under the definition of 1 2021 SCC Online AP 355 "goonda" as per section 2(g) of the Act 1 of 1986. Those wide range of offences were not only intended to cause bodily harm but there was a tendency on the part of the detenue to do away with the lives of human beings by creating animosity among the different communal people. All these activities, he forcibly argued, were aimed at endangering public lives and thus they were prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. Since the ordinary laws have had no deterrent effect on him, the detaining authority has rightly ordered his preventive detention under the Act 1 of 1986. He thus prayed to dismiss the writ petition.
7. The point for consideration is whether the Detaining Authority has taken into consideration the irrelevant and stale materials and thereby the detention order per se became illegal and liable to be set aside?
8. Point : As can be seen from the detention order and grounds of detention dated 06.07.2023, admittedly the Detaining Authority has taken into consideration sixteen crimes narrated supra and expressed his subjective satisfaction that the detenue comes under the definition 'goonda' under Section 2(g) of the Act 1 of 1986 and his activities are dangerous to human life and prejudice to the maintenance of public order and accordingly, passed the detention order. Therefore, it has now to be seen whether the 2nd respondent has arrived at subjective satisfaction in accordance with the provisions of the Act 1 of 1986 or his order is vitiated by law.
(a) Section 2(g) of the Act 1 of 1986 defines the term 'goonda' as follows:
(g) "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 definition pellucidly tells that in order to brand a person as goonda, he must involve in the commission of offences punishable under Chapter XVI or Chapter XVII or Chapter XXII of IPC. Chapter XVI deals with "offences affecting the human body" under Sections 299 to 377 IPC; Chapter XVII deals with the offences against the property under Sections 378 to 462 IPC; whereas Chapter XXII deals with the offences of criminal intimidation, insult and annoyance under Sections 503 to 510 IPC.
9. Be that as it may, in the light of the above definition, when the sixteen crimes are scrutinized, except Cr.No.284/2022, remaining fifteen crimes allegedly committed by the detenue fall within the definition of goonda. Cr.No.284/2022 is concerned, the detenue allegedly committed offences U/s 8(b) r/w 20 (b)(ii)(c) of NDPSA Act. Section 8 (b) of NPPSA Act deals with illegal cultivation of the opium poppy or any cannabis plant. Needless to emphasize the above said offence falls outside the circumference of chapters XVI, XVII and XXII IPC. Therefore, there is force in the argument of the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the Detaining Authority has considered irrelevant material to order preventive detention.
(a) The effect of irrelevant material on a detention order was delineated in Annam Venkatakrishnaraju's case (1 supra) by a Division Bench of this High Court. In that case, considering 16 crimes in which the detenue therein was allegedly involved, the Detaining Authority termed him as 'goonda' under Section 2(g) of the Act 1 of 1986 and passed detention order. In the concerned writ petition, a Division Bench of this High Court considering the fact that out of 11 crimes, 10 fall within the definition of goonda, but 1 crime i.e., Cr.No.355/2020 was an offence U/s 34(1)(a)(i) of the A.P. Excise Amendment Act 2020 which do not fall within the definition of Section 2(g) of Act 1 of 1986 held thus:-
"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, an irrelevant ground has been taken into consideration while passing the order of detention."
(b) It should be noted, the Division Bench considered several decisions, one of which is Shiv Prasad Bhatnagar v. State of Madhya Pradesh2, wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court held that the detention must be pertinent and not irrelevant, proximate and not stale, precise and not vague and irrelevance, staleness and vagueness are vices and any single one of which is sufficient to vitiate the ground of detention and a single vicious ground is sufficient to vitiate an order of detention. 2 MANU/SC/0082/1981 = AIR 1981 SC 870
(c) In W.P.No.19145/2023 also, a Division Bench of this High Court having found that out of four crimes which were considered to treat the detenue as 'goonda', one crime does not attract the said definition, held that irrelevant ground was made as basis for passing the impugned order of preventive detention.
(d) The above decisions squarely apply to case on hand, inasmuch as, in this case, the offence in Cr.No.284/2022 does not fall within the ambit of 'goonda'. Therefore, the satisfaction arrived at by the Detaining Authority is vitiated. It is argued by the Special Government Pleader that the other crimes fulfill the definition of 'goonda' and therefore, the detention order is legally justified. The said contention has no venom, for, in the cited decisions it was observed that even if one ground is irrelevant, the same would vitiate the detention order as a whole.
10. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed and the detention order in Roc.No.M1(BOM PS)/465369/2023, dated 06.07.2023 passed by 2nd respondent - The Collector & District Magistrate, East Godavari District, Rajamahendravaram, is hereby set aside and the detenue namely Karanam Srinivas @ Rajendra Nagar Vasu @ Vasu, S/o.Late Venkata Ramana, is directed to be released forthwith by the respondents, if the detenue is not required in any other cases. No costs.
As a sequel, interlocutory applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.
__________________________ U. DURGA PRASAD RAO, J ___________________________ KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA, J SS