PILLI YETESWARI Vs. GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two cases challenge the orders of preventive detention passed against the respective petitioners by the Commissioner of Police and Addl. District Magistrate, Visakhapatnam. Orders of detention were passed on 6-6-1996 under the Andhra Pradesh Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Boot-leggers, Dacoits, Drug Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders and Land Grabbers Act, 1986 (Act No.1 of 1986) (hereinafter referred to as "the Act")- The representations of the two petitioners were rejected by the Government on 17-6-1996 while approving the detention and thereafter their cases were placed before the Advisory Board under the Act on 19-7-1996. The orders of detentions were confirmed by the Board for one year. Since both the detentions arise out of almost identical set of facts, both the cases are disposed of by this common order.

(2.) Both the cases have been filed by the respective wives of the detenus. In W.P.No.12572 of 1996, the detenu is one Pilli Kanaka Reddy. The respondent No.2 observed while passing the order of detention regarding him:

(3.) Mr. C. Padmanabha Reddy, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the two petitioners submits the orders of detention being not for maintenance of any public order and relatable, if at all, only to a situation of law and order and further submits the orders of detention to have been the product of absolute non-application of mind. It is his submission, so far as the first detenu is concerned, that para one of the grounds of detention refers to the citation of different case numbers as extracted at the bottom of the grounds, but all those cases except Crime No. 15/96 under Section 380I.P.C. of Harbour Crime Police Station ended in acquittal. Since cases in which the detenu had been acquitted form substantial part of the consideration of the detaining authority to torm the opinion regarding his detention, the order is vitiated. If ground No.1 of detention is excluded as not forming a valid ground for detention, the other incident referred to in item 2 of the grounds is only a single instance of theft which would not justify the detention. Similarly, so far as the detenu - V. Satyanarayana is concerned, it is his submission that the ground No.l refers to the different crimes, the table of which has been given at the bottom of the grounds, but out of those cases the prosecution in cases referred to from SI.No.8 to 34 of the table, has not been concluded and they are still pending, and that further all those cases are registered under Section 3 of the Railway Property (Unlawful Possession) Act, Sl.Nos.l, 2,5,6 and 7 are offences allegedly under Sections 457 and 380 IPC or under Sections 379 and 380 IPC and thus are not offences under chapters 16, 17 or 22 of the IPC. The case referred to under Sl.No3 of the table was one under Section 65 of the A.P.C.P. Act in which the detenu was acquitted. Similiarly, the detenu was also acquitted from the crime referred to at Sl-No.4 which was an offence under Section 380 IPC. He had been also acquitted from the offence registered as Crime No.465/91 referred to at Sl.No5 of the table under Sections 41 and 102 Cr.P.C