Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

3. In the counter filed by the 1st respondent-authority, it is stated that the detenu has been causing grass loot of National Wealth and he was habituated to wilfully destructing the Pristine red sanders by operating mafia and there is a source of potential danger to the public and his activities are prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. It is submitted that the Divisional Forest Officer has placed the record-before the detaining authority on 17-12-2003 wherein it was alleged that on 9-12-2003, a case was registered against the detenu while he was indulging in cutting of red sanders when the forest officials have found the red sander of 15 logs weighing 526 kgs., valued at Rs. 11,072/- and thereby, he committed an offence Under Section 379 IPC read with 20(1)(c)(ii) and (iii) of A.P. Forest Act. Similarly, on 13-12-2003, a case was registered against the detenu while he was found carrying illicit cutting and storage of red sanders for transporting on 13-12-2003. The value of the red sander logs was Rs. 14,432/- and thereby, a case was registered Under Section 379 IPC and Section 20(1)(c)(ii) and (iii) and (iv) of A.P. Forest Act. On 15-12-2003, another case was registered against the detenu under Section 379 IPC and Section 20(1)(c)(ii) and (iii) of A.P. Forest Act.

5. The learned senior counsel Mr. C. Padmanabha Reddy appearing for the detenu has submitted that the detenu did not fall within the definition "Goonda" as defined Under Section 2(g) of the Act and therefore, on this ground alone he is to be released. He further submits that what is contemplated Under Section 2(g) of the Act is that a person who is alleged to have indulged in habitual commission of offences is punishable under Chapter XVI or XVII or XXII IPC. In the instant case, the learned counsel would submit that even though Section 379 IPC is covered by Chapter XVII I.P.C. yet the detaining authority has referred to the provisions Under Section 20 of Forest Act as referred to above and therefore, the detaining authority has taken into consideration the irrelevant material for passing the impugned order. Thus, he submits that there is total non-application of mind and the subjective satisfaction as arrived by the detaining authority is not based on the objective consideration of the material placed on record.

2. O.R. No. 51/2003-04. dated 13-12-2003: On 13-12-2003, at about 3-00 P.M. while Sri E. Sreenivasulu, Forest Section Officer and other forest Staff patrolling the Seshachalam Extension Reserve Forest Rollamadugu beat upper side of Pallapet, you along with your accomplice found near the bushes. On noticing the forest officials, you and your accomplice ran away from the scene of offence. On inspection of the area near bushes found Red Sander logs 20 in number weighing 656 Kgs valued at Rs. 14,432-00 thus you and your accomplice entered into Reserve Forest, carried illicit cutting and storage of Red Sanders for transporting. You were charged under Section 379 IPC and Section 20(i) C II, III and X of A.P. Forest Act, 1967. Thus, it is quite evident that you are committing offences of illicit cutting and storing of Red Sanders causing wilful destruction of valuable Red Sanders which is endangered species and national wealth.

14. It is not in dispute that the detaining authority has to apply the principle of objective consideration before reaching subjective satisfaction but when the provision itself cannot be taken into consideration for passing the detention order, can it be said that the detention order can still be maintained?

15. The learned Advocate General however tried to convince this Court that Section 379 IPC is referable to Chapter XVII and that itself constitutes a sufficient ground to enable the detaining authority to pass the order. In our considered opinion, the contention cannot be accepted. When the detaining authority has taken into consideration both relevant and irrelevant grounds, the entire order of detention has to be set aside and it cannot salvage the order to the extent of Section 379 IPC. We are not inclined to go into the aspect whether Section 379 IPC has been properly invoked so as to bring it within the parameters of 2(a) of the Act. Suffice it to say that it is not open for the detaining authority to consider the provisions, which are not relevant and which are not stipulated under the Act so as to invoke the detention order.