M PREMA BAI Vs. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE HYDERABAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner invoked the special original jurisdiction of this Court through this writ of habeas corpus praying to direct the respondents to produce her son Manoj Kumar Singh now detained in Central Prison, Chenchalguda, before this Court and to order his release forthwith after declaring that his detention as illegal and void.

(2.) In the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition the petitioner averred that on 28-6-2002 the respondent passed an order under Section 3(2) of the Andhra Pradesh Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers. Dacoits. Drug offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic offenders and Land Grabbers Act, 1986 (Act 1 of 1986) (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for the sake of brevity) detaining her son Manoj Kumar Singh @ Manoj Kumar on the ground that he is a bootlegger as defined in Section 2(b) of the Act with a view to prevent him from acting in the manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. The said order was served on 29-6-2002. The detenu made a representation to the respondents 1 and 2 and to the Advisory Board constituted under the Act. The 2nd respondent and the Advisory Board rejected the same on 12-7-2002 and 19-7-2002 respectively. The Government of Andhra Pradesh has confirmed the detention order on 10-8-2002. The petitioner further alleged that her son was detained by taking into consideration four incidents wherein the police found him in possession of 200 packets of Illicit Distilled liquor (ID liquor) intending for sale. The petitioner further mentioned in the affidavit that the order of detention of her son was passed in a mechanical manner on vague, irrelevant, stale and non-existing grounds. She further mentioned that the detenu was granted bail in all the crimes and he was acquitted by the Metropolitan Magistrate on 29-1-2002 in CC No. 1682 of 2001 in respect of the alleged offence covered by the second incident under Section 8(b) of the A.P. Prohibition Act alleged to have been committed by him on 10-10-2000 and the said information which is the most relevant material was not placed before the detaining authority before passing the order of detention. She further mentioned that mere possession of ID liquor sachets does not amount to an act prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. Therefore, the detenu is entitled to be released and the order of detention is liable to be set aside.

(3.) Before adverting to the facts of the case, we wish to refer to the relevant provisions of the Act. Section 2(b) of the Act defines "bootlegger" and it reads as follows: "Bootlegger" means a person, who distils manufactures, stores- transports, imports, exports, sells or distributes any liquor, intoxicating drug or other intoxicant in contravention of any of the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Excise Act, 1968 and the rules, notifications and orders made thereunder, or in contravention of any other law for the time being in force, or who knowingly expends or applies any money or supplies any animal, vehicle, vessel or other conveyance or any receptacle or any other material whatsoever in furtherance or support of the doing of any of the abovementioned things by himself or through any other person, or who abets in any other manner the doing of any such thing;