Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Polarapu Varalakshmi vs The State Of Ap on 22 January, 2024
Author: U. Durga Prasad Rao
Bench: U.Durga Prasad Rao
[ 3456 ]
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
MONDAY , THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF JANUARY
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE U.DURGA PRASAD RAO
THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA
WRIT PETITION NO: 29252 OF 2023
Between:
POLARAPU VARALAKSHMI W/o Mangaraju Aged about 48
years Door No 42215 Gubelupeta Near Somalamma Temple
Kothapeta Rajamahendravaram East Godavari District
...PETITIONER(S)
AND
1. THE STATE OF AP
Represented by its Chief Secretary to Government General
AdministrationSC I Department Secretariat Buildings
Velagapudi Guntur District Andhra Pradesh
2. The Collector and District Magistrate
East Godavari District Raj amahendravaram
3. The Superintendent of Jails
Central Prison Raj amahendravaram East Godavari District
Andhra Pradesh
4. The Superintendent of Police
East Godavari District Raj amahendravaram
...RESPONDENTS
2
This Court made the following
ORDER:(Per Hon'ble Sri Justice U. Durga Prasad Rao) Petitioner prays for writ of Habeas Corpus on the ground that her son Polavarapu Prasad @ Manga Raju was illegally detained pursuant to the proceedings in Roc.No.M1(I Tn PS)/463858/2023, dated 20.06.2023 of the 2nd respondent as confirmed in G.O.Rt.No.1620, General Administration (SC.I) Department, dated 11.08.2023 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 20.06.2023 passed the detention order against Polavarapu Prasad @ Manga Raju having taken into consideration the following 8 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'].
3
1. Cr.No.287/2018 U/s 324 r/w 34 IPC altered to 325 r/w 34 IPC of I Town L&O PS, Rajamahendravaram.
2. Cr.No.268/2019 U/s 379, 356, 382 r/w 34 IPC of I Town L&O PS, Rajamahendravaram.
3. Cr.No.580/2019 U/s 354, 323, 509, r/w 34 IPC of I Town L&O PS, Rajamahendravaram.
4. Cr.No.288/2020, U/s 9(1) of A.P. Gaming Act of I Town L&O PS, Rajamahendravaram.
5. Cr.No.29/2021, U/s 9-II APGA, 11(a)(a) PCAA of Thallapudi PS West Godavari District.
6. Cr.No.40/2022 U/s 302 R/w 34 IPC of II Town L&O PS, Rajamahendravaram.
7. Cr.No.193/2022 U/s 8(b) r/w 20 (b)(ii)(c) NDPSA of Korukonda PS, East Godavari District.
8. Cr.No.145/2023 U/s 395 IPC of I Town L&O Police, Rajamahendravaram.
Subsequently the Government have confirmed his detention vide proceedings in G.O.Rt.No.1620, General Administration (SC.I) Department, dated 11.08.2023.
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 ground raised, however on one main ground learned counsel for the petitioner argued that out of 8 cases, 4 considered for issuing detention order, in two cases i.e., Cr.No.288/2020 of Town L&O PS, Rajamahendravaram and Cr.No.29/2021 of Thallapudi PS, West Godavari District the detenue allegedly committed offences U/s 9(1) and 9(2) of A.P. Gaming Act and in one case i.e., Cr.No.193/2022 of Korukonda PS, East Godavari District the detenue allegedly committed offences U/s 8(b) r/w 20 (b)(ii)(c) of NDPSA Act and all these three cases even if 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 9(1) and 9(2) of A.P. Gaming Act and 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.
1 2021 SCC Online AP 355 5
6. In oppugnation, learned Special Government Pleader argued that the detenue was habitually involved in 8 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 "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?
6
8. Point : As can be seen from the detention order and grounds of detention dated 20.06.2023, admittedly the Detaining Authority has taken into consideration eight 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 7 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 eight crimes are scrutinized, except Cr.Nos.288/2020, 29/2021 and 193/2022, remaining five crimes allegedly committed by the detenue fall within the definition of goonda. Cr.Nos.288/2020 and 29/2021 are concerned, the detenue allegedly committed offences U/s 9(1) and 9(2) of A.P. Gaming Act. Cr.No.193/2022 is concerned, the detenue allegedly committed offences U/s 8(b) r/w 20 (b)(ii)(c) of NDPSA Act. Section 9 of A.P. Gaming Act deals with penalty for gaming or setting birds or animals to fight in a public street or place. Similarly, Section 8 (b) of NPPSA Act deals with illegal cultivation of the opium poppy or any cannabis plant. Needless to emphasize both these offences fall outside the circumference of chapters XVI, XVII and XXII IPC. Therefore, there is force in the argument of the 8 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 11 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 9 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.
(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 do 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 offences in Cr.Nos.288/2020, 29/2021 and 193/2022 do 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 2 MANU/SC/0082/1981 = AIR 1981 SC 870 10 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(I Tn PS)/463858/2023, dated 20.06.2023 passed by 2nd respondent - The Collector & District Magistrate, East Godavari District, Rajamahendravaram, is hereby set aside and the detenue namely Polavarapu Prasad @ Manga Raju, S/o Manga Raju 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 22.01.2024 KRK 11 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE U.DURGA PRASAD RAO THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA WRIT PETITION NO: 29252 OF 2023 ___________, 2024 krk