CHINTALA BHOVANA Vs. COLLECTOR AND DISTRICT MAGISTRATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is the brother-in-law of the detenu. He filed this writ of habeas corpus on behalf of the detenu for her release from the Central Prison, Rajahmundry after declaring her detention as illegal and void.

(2.) The detenu is described as a 'bootlegger' indulging in possessing and selling I.D. Arrack, the consumption of which would result in grave or widespread danger to life or public health. On 27-11-2004 the first respondent passed an order under Sec. 3(1) and (2) of the Andhra Pradesh Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Boot Leggers, Dacoits, Drug-offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders and Land Grabbers Act, 1986 (for short 'the Act') ordering detention of the detenu to prevent her from further acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. The petitioner contended that the first respondent failed to (1) follow the mandatory procedure prescribed under law, (2) verify the correctness of the allegations, and (3) assess whether the offences mentioned in the grounds fall under the Act.

(3.) In the grounds of detention the detenu was described as a 'bootlegger' and there was a reference to as many as 11 instances in which crimes were registered against the detenu for indulging in illegal possession and sale of I.D. liquor, and transporting the same from abutting State of Orissa by causing wide spread danger to public health. Ground No. 1 relates to a crime registered on 21-11-1999 for possessing 10 litres of I.D. liquor, ground No. 2 relates to the offence dated 25-6-2000 for possessing 20 litres of I.D. liquor and ground No. 3 relates to the offence dated 9-2-2003 for possessing 20 litres of I.D. liquor. The subsequent grounds relate to the offences of the year 2003 and 2004. Though ground Nos. 3 to 11 are proximate to each other and ground No. 11 is proximate to the date of the order of detention, there is a gap of 2 years and 8 months between the offence covered by ground No. 2 and the offence covered by ground No. 3 and they are not proximate to each other. The Supreme Court in Collector and District Magistrate v. Sangala Kondamma held as follows: Thus, if the facts placed before the detaining authority are proximate to each other and the last of the facts mentioned is proximate to the order of detention, then the earlier incidents cannot be treated as stale and detention order cannot be set aside.