SMT B. UMA Vs. THE GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY, GENERAL ADMINISTRATION (LAW & ORDER) DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, HYDERABAD AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The wife of the detenu seeks a Mandamus against the order of detention dated 28.06.2015 passed by the second respondent, as confirmed by the first respondent under G.O.Rt.No.2904 General Administration (Law & Order) Department dated 21.08.2014.

(2.) Petitioner states that the aforesaid order of detention is based upon 10 crimes registered against the detenu but the detaining authority was not apprised of the fact that the detenu was already tried and acquitted in at least 4 of the cases listed in the order of detention. It is also pointed out that the detenu was already enlarged on bail in crimes listed under items 2, 8, 9 and 10 in the detention order but the fact of enlargement of the detenu on bail was not brought to the notice of the detaining authority and thereby, the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority is vitiated.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner pointed out that the order of detention itself mentions that the crime shown under item 1 ended in acquittal and similarly, in the crimes shown under items 5, 6 and 7, the detenu was acquitted by the criminal Court. In view of that, therefore, learned counsel submits that taking those crimes into consideration for the purpose of passing of detention order clearly vitiates the detention order. Learned counsel would also submit that ordinary course of criminal prosecution having already launched against the detenu there was no warrant for invocation of the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Boot Leggers, Dacoits, Drug-Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders and Land Grabbers Act, 1986 hereinafter referred to as the Act 1 of 1986 merely on the ground that three of the cases relate to extortion and four of the cases relate to various offences.