J GOVARDHAN REDDY Vs. COLLECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, who claims to be the son of the detenu, namely Junnuthula (Dunnuthala) Gopi Reddy, who is now detained in Central Prison, Cherlapally, has filed this writ petition praying for a writ of Habeas Corpus, directing the respondents to produce the detenu before this Court and set him at liberty forthwith. The Divisional Forest Officer, Kadapa, YSR District, informed respondent No. 1, namely the Collector and District Magistrate (hereinafter referred to as 'the Detaining Authority') that the detenu since last two years is involved in illicit felling of red sanders, smuggling them to secret and unknown places in India and abroad, and that he is involved in four forest offences, namely in O.R. No. 47/2011-12, dated 22-7-2011 of Sidhout Range; Crime No. 55/2012, dated 07-08-2011 of Vontimitta Police Station and O.R. Nos. 171/ 2011-12, dated 08-02-2012; 139/2011-12, dated 03-12-2011 and 157/2011-12, dated 18-01-2012 of Vontimitta Range, which were registered against him for the offences punishable under Sections 20, 29 and 44 of the A.P. Forest Act, 1967 and Rule 3 of the A.P. Sandal Wood and Red Sander Wood Transit Rules, 1969 and the provisions of Sections 378 and 379 I.P.C. In connection with the offences in three cases, the detenu obtained anticipatory bail, while in the case of offence in O.R. No. 157/2011-12, dated 18-01-2012 of Vontimitta Range, the detenu was arrested on 06-03-2012 and the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Sidhout, remanded him to judicial custody till 19-03-2012. While the detenu is in judicial custody, considering the fact that the illegal activities of the detenu, is causing wilful destruction of red sander trees, which is an endangered species, and causing damage to public property, resulting in depletion of green cover and loss of national wealth, and as his activities are prejudicial to the maintenance of public order, disturbing the peace, tranquility and social harmony in the society, and as the forest laws and ordinary law under which the detenu is being prosecuted are not sufficient in the ordinary course to deal with him firmly, respondent No. 1-detaining Authority, in exercise of the powers conferred on him under Section 3(1) and (2) of the A.P. Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Boot Leggers, Dacoits, Drug Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders and Land Grabbing Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Preventive Detention Act'), with a view to prevent the detenu from commission of similar such activities, which is resulting in plundering of national wealth, vide order dated 07-03-2012 ordered the detention of the detenu in prison. Thereafter, based on the recommendations of the Advisory Board, respondent No. 2- Government, by order dated 24-04-2012, confirmed the order of detention. Hence, questioning the said order of detention, passed by respondent No. 1-Detaining Authority for detention of the detenu in prison, as confirmed by respondent No. 2-Government, the petitioner filed the present writ petition.

(2.) The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the four cases registered against the detenu for the offences punishable under the A.P. Forest Act and the Indian Penal Code, which formed the basis for passing the order of detention by respondent No. 1-Detaining Authority are false. He submitted that the detenu obtained anticipatory bail in three cases, while in one case, he was arrested on 06-03-2012 and produced before the Magistrate, and his application for bail having been dismissed, was remanded to judicial custody. Since the application of the detenu for his release on bail was dismissed and he having not made any fresh application for his release on bail, the possibility of his coming out of jail and indulging in commission of similar such activities, which are allegedly prejudicial to the maintenance of public order does not arise. However, respondent No. 1-Detaining Authority, without considering this aspect of the matter and also the fact that the detenu had obtained anticipatory bail in three cases, has passed the order of detention, which is liable to be set aside as it suffers from his lack of subjective satisfaction. In support of his argument that non-placing of bail orders obtained by the detenu would vitiate the subjective satisfaction of the Detaining Authority, placed reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court in Rushikesh Tanaji Bholte v. State of Maharashtra, 2012 2 ALT(Cri)(SC) 14. He thus prayed that the writ petition be allowed and the order of detention passed by respondent No. 1-Detaining Authority against the detenu, as confirmed by respondent No. 2-Government be set aside.

(3.) On behalf of the respondents, respondent No. 1-Detaining Authority, namely the Collector and District Magistrate filed counter. The learned Assistant Government Pleader representing the learned Advocate General for the respondents, reiterating the stand taken by the respondents in their counter submitted that the detenu is habitually indulging in illicit felling of red sander trees by trespassing into forest area, smuggling and transporting them out of the reserved forest owned by the State, that his activities are not only dangerous to the rare species of red sanders, but also causing damage to the pristine forest wealth. His activities are also prejudicial to the maintenance of public order, and for commission of such offences, the detenu is punishable under the provisions of the A.P. Forest Act and the Rules made thereunder and the provisions of the Indian Penal Code. The detenu has committed as many as four offences in a span of two years, and as the ordinary laws under which he is being prosecuted are not sufficient to deal with his activities, respondent No. 1-Detaining Authority, with a view to prevent the detenu from indulging in commission of similar such crimes, has, passed the order of detention by invoking the Preventive Detention Law, which was confirmed by respondent No. 2-Government. He further submitted that though the application of the detenu for his release on bail was dismissed by the Magistrate and he is in judicial custody, but the same by itself, does not bar the Detaining Authority, to pass an order of detention under the Preventive Detention Law, if the Detaining Authority is satisfied that there is every possibility of the detenu being released on bail in the pending cases, and upon such release, the detenu would indulge in commission of similar such offences and act in a manner breaching public order or law and order, and therefore, there is every need to detain him under the Preventive Detention Law. He further submitted that the anticipatory bail orders obtained by the detenu in the three cases were placed before respondent No. 1-Detaining Authority and as such, it should be taken that respondent No. 1-Detaining Authority, has passed the order of detention after taking them into consideration. In support of his argument that there is no prohibition in law to pass order of detention against a person who is already in judicial custody, he placed reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court in Hudirom Konunglao Singh v. State of Manipur, 2012 7 SCC 181. Hence, he prayed that the order of detention, passed by respondent No. 1-Detaining Authority, as confirmed by respondent No. 2-Government, be upheld and the writ petition be dismissed.