Harinath.N, J
1. The writ petition is filed challenging the order of detention vide REV-MAGL/269/2024, dated 04.02.2024 issued by the 1st respondent.
2. The petitioner is the mother of detenu who was detained vide order of detention dated 04.02.2024. The 2nd respondent confirmed the detention order and issued G.O.Rt.No.642 General Administration (SC.I) Department, dated 26.03.2024. The detenu was involved in the following 07 cases.
|
S.No. |
Crime No. |
Police Station |
Offences under Sections |
|
1. |
Crime No.102 of 2022 |
K.V.Palli Police Station of Annamayya District |
Under Section 307, 353, 120(B), 379 (Theft of National Property), 109 red with 149 IPC, Section 20 (i)(d)(i) read with 20(1)C (ii) 9(iii)(iv)(ix)&(x), Section 36 read with 32(A) of AP Forest (Amendment) Act, 2016, Section 3 of PDPP Act, 1984 and Section 55 (2) read with Section 3, 4 and 6 of Biological Diversity Act, 2022. |
|
2. |
Crime No.262 of 2022 |
Mydukur (U/G) Police Station |
Under Section 147, 148, 353, 307, 379 (Theft of National Property) read with 149 IPC, Section 20(1) C (ii) (iii) (iv) (vi) (x), Section 20(d) (i) (a) (b) (ii) (a) (b), Section 29 (2) (b) of AP Forest (Amendment) Act, 2016, Rule 3 of AP Sandal Wood and Red Sanders Wood Transit Rules, 1969 and Section 3 of PDPP Act. |
|
3. |
Crime No.11 of 2023 |
Kalikiri Police Station of Annamayya District |
Under Section 148, 307, 447, 379 (Theft of National Property), 353 read with 149 IPC, Section 36 read with 32(a) of AP Forest (Amendment) Act, 2016, Rule 3 and 4 of AP Red Sandal Wood and Red Sanders Wood Transit Rules, 1969, Section 55 (2) read with 3, 4 & 6 of the Biological Diversity Act, 2002 and Section 3 of PDPP Act, 1984. |
|
4. |
Crime No.65 of 2023 |
Vayalpad Police Station of Annamayya District |
Under Section 447, 427, 379 (Theft of National Property) IPC, Section 20(1)(d)(i) read with section 20(1)C(ii) (iii) (iv) (ix)(x), Section 36 read with 32(A) of AP Forest (Amendment) Act, 2016, Rule 3 & 4 of AP Sandal Wood & Red Sanders Wood Transit Rules, 1969, Section 55(2) read Section 3, 4 & 6 of Biological Diversity Act, 2002, Section 3 of PDPP Act, 1984. |
|
5. |
Crime No.85 of 2023 |
Kallur Police Station of Annamayya District |
Under Section 307, 353, 447, 379 (Theft of National Property) and 120(b) read with 34 IPC, Section 20(1)(d)(i) read with Section 20(1) C (ii) (iii) (iv) (ix) and (x), Section 36 read with 32(A) of AP Forest (Amendment) Act, 2016 and Section 55(2) read with Section 3, 4 and 6 of Biological Diversity Act, 2002. |
|
6. |
Crime No.151 of 2023 |
Red Sanders Anti-Smuggling Task Force Police Station |
Under Section 379 (Theft of National Property) IPC, Section 20(1)(d)(i)(a) read with Section 20(1)C (ii)(iii)(iv)(x), Section 36(a) read with Section 32-A, Section 29(4)(i)(a) of the AP Forest Act. |
|
7. |
Crime No.169 of 2023 |
Red Sanders Anti-Smuggling Task Force Police Station, Tirupati |
Under Section 379 (Theft of National Property), 120 (B) read with 34 IPC, Section 20(1) (d) (i)(a) read with Section 20(1)C (ii) (iii) (iv) (x), Section 36(a) read with 32-A, Section 29 (4)(i)(a) of the AP Forest (Amendment) Act, 2016 |
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the offences charged against the detenu cannot be brought within the definition of Goonda as defined in the Andhra Pradesh Prevention of Bootleggers, Dacoits, Drug Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders and Land Grabbers Act, 1986 (herein after be referred as ‘the Act’) The detention order refers to the violation of penal statutory provisions under the Forest Act pertaining to committing of theft of Red Sanders and that the same would not affect the public order.
4. It is also submitted that the detenu was acquitted in three cases and that the orders of acquittal and the relevant material was not placed before the detaining authority. Such suppression of vital material would render the order of detention illegal.
5. The respondents in their counter submit that the detenu is a hardened criminal involving in selling and transportation of Red Sanders logs and smuggling the same. It is also submitted that the detaining authority was furnished with all information and a well reasoned order of detention was passed after considering the material placed before the detaining authority. The order of detention indicates that the detenu was apprehended at the scene of offence in Cr.No.11 of 2023 and Cr.No.169 of 2023. He was produced before the Courts through PT warrants in five cases. As such, there cannot be any scope for the detenu to claim that relevant material was not supplied to the detaining authority.
6. It is also brought to the notice of the Court that the detenu is a habitual offender and also a mastermind behind commission of such offences. The illegal activities of the detenu would definitely fall within the ambit of the definition of Goonda.
7. The order of detention would clearly indicate that the grounds of detention along with the material were supplied to the detenu both in English and Tamil languages and as such there is no truth in the allegation that the detenu was not supplied with the translated grounds of detention.
8. The learned counsel for the petitioner relies on Champion R.Sangma Vs. State of Meghalaya and another (2015) 16 SCC 253 and submits that the detaining authority did not consider three factors before passing the detention order as the triple requirements were not fulfilled, the order of detention deserves to be set aside.
9. This Court is in respectful agreement with the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Champion R. Sangma Vs. State of Meghalaya and another (supra1). When compared to the facts of the present case, the detention order definitely complies with the triple requirements. The authority passing the order is aware of the fact that he is in the custody. The order of detention is also passed basing on the reliable material placed before the detaining authority and the order of detention is essential as there is a possibility of the detenu being released on bail and further the detenu once enlarged on bail in all probability would resort to indulging in similar offences.
The order of detention also mentions the necessity to detain the detenu to prevent him from doing so.
10. The submission of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that the detenu is charged for offences under Forest Act, Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act and Biological Diversity Act apart from Section 307, 353, 120-B and such other IPC offences. The IPC offences charged against the detenu are under Chapter XVI and XVII of the Indian Penal Code. As such the submissions of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that the offences with which the detenu is charged would not come within the definition of Goonda as defined under the 2(g) of the Act has no basis.
11. The order of detention is not hit by any latches as alleged by the petitioner. The perusal of the order of detention would amply make it clear that the detaining authority has considered all the aspects including the likelihood of the detenu being granted/released on bail in other crimes. It was found essential to preserve the rare and pristine forest wealth. It was found essential to pass the order of detention which is under challenge.
12. No valid grounds are set forth by the petitioner for this Court to interfere with the order of detention and accordingly, the writ petition is deserves to be dismissed.
13. In the result, the writ petition is dismissed. There shall be no order of costs.
As a sequel pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, in this writ petition shall stand closed.
