MOGANTI SRIHARI RAO Vs. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is the father of one Moganti Venkata Subba Rao, who was preventively detained by an order dated 26-12 -1996 in C. No. 434/M.C./96 passed by the 1st respondent-the Commissioner of Police & Additional District Magistrate, Visakhapatnam City, under Section 3(2) of 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 1 of 1986), with a view to preventing him from acting in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. The order was passed on the ground that he haltitually commits offences and goonda activities in violation of the law of the land and that he comes within the category of Goonda.

(2.) Along with the order of detention, a copy of the grounds based upon which the detention was ordered, was, furnished to the detenu. After referring, as been habitually committing goonda activities in violation of the law of the land and therefore he comes under the category of Goonda as defined under Section 2(g) of the Act No.1 of 1986, the grounds of detention are mentioned. The following are some of the grounds:

(3.) After narrating the grounds of detention, the detaining authority stated that the detenu is a dangerous and desperate character and so hardened and became incorrigible that the ordinary provisions of Penal Code will not have deterrent effect over his criminal acts and he is likely to repeat such criminal acts in future and as such he has to be kept under control. The detaining authority further stated that in the circumstances, preventive detention is only the precautionary measure to avert the situation and that the preventive detention is always the precautionary measure and it is based on reasonable prognos is of future behaviour of the person based on his past conduct found in the light of the above circumstances, and that from the nature of the incidents an inference can reasonably be drawn that he would be likely to repeat such acts. Therefore, he is satisfied from the material placed before him that he falls under the category of TGoonda as defined under Section 2(g) of the Act and accordingly passed the order of detention.