DODDI SHARADA Vs. COLLECTOR AND DIST MAGISTRATE HYD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These Habeas Corpus petitions are coming before us by virtue of an order of a reference made by a Division Bench on 29-11-2004. The Division Bench expressed inability to follow earlier two Division Bench judgments of this Court in N. Rami Reddy v. Government of Andhra Pradesh (1997 (4) ALT 522 (D.B.)) and M. Laxmi Bai v. Commissioner of Police, Hyderabad (2003 (1) ALD 35 = 2003 (1) ALT (Crl.) 181 (D.B.)).

(2.) One of the grounds taken in these petitions is that the report of the Chemical Analyst with regard to the seized liquor did not give the percentage of different constituents of the liquor seized, therefore, the order of detention could not be sustained.

(3.) We are taking W.P.No. 19668 of 2004 for the purpose of referring to the material facts. The detenu, in this case, was detained by virtue of an order passed by the District Magistrate under the Andhra Pradesh Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Dacoits, Drug-Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders and Land Grabbers Act, 1986 (for short 'the Act"). It appears that liquor was seized from the detenu on various occasions and various cases were registered against him. In some of the grounds, it was stated by learned Magistrate that the sample of I.D. Liquor drawn from the contraband seized was sent for chemical analysis and the Government Chemical Examiner reported in his C.E report that the sample was illicitly distilled liquor, unfit for potable purpose. We have seen some of the reports of the Public Analyst, which have been produced by learned Government Pleader appearing for the Advocate-General.