C VENKATESWARA RAO Vs. COLLECTOR AND DISTRICT MAGISTRATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The order of detention passed by the 1st respondent-The Collector and District Magistrate, Krishna District at Machilipatnam, dated 21.8.2004 is assailed in this writ petition.

(2.) The brother-in-law of the petitioner viz., Gunja Venkata Narasaiah alias Venkata Narsi, hereinafter referred to as the detenu, was detained on the ground that he was a 'Bootlegger' within the meaning of Section 2(b) of the Andhra Pradesh Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Dacoits, Drug Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders and Land Grabbers Act, 1986 (Act 1/86) (for short the Act) and that he was acting in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order viz., illicit distillation of liquor which was in his possession was found to be unfit for human consumption and injurious to health.

(3.) It is the contention of the learned Senior Counsel Mr. C. Padmanabha Reddy appearing for the detenu that the order of detention is not sustainable in law. Apart from various contentions, he raises a formidable contention that the Chemical Examiner's Report did not specify the permissible limits of three components of the liquor, viz., Ethyl Alcohol, Acidity and Fusel Oil. Even though it was mentioned as 'positive' in the Chemical Examiner's Report, the Report did not say that it exceeded the permissible limits and in support of his contentions he relies on the decision of a Division Bench of this Court reported in Boya Chinna Subbarayudu v. The Collector and District Magistrate, Kurnool and others, 1994 (3) ALT 467 (DB), and followed by a subsequent decision reported in Smt. E. Nookaratnam, Nellore v. The Collector and District Magistrate, Nellore and others, 1997 (4) ALD 25 (DB) = 1997 (2) ALT (Crl.) 146 (DB) (AP), and also the order in Writ Petition No. 16919 of 2004, dated 7.10.2004. Thus, the learned Senior Counsel would submit that inasmuch as the permissible limit has not been mentioned in the Report, it vitiates the detention order. He also makes his submissions on other aspects of the detention order, but, however, we find it necessary to consider this aspect before proceeding with the other contentions raised.