SHAKERA BEGUM Vs. GOVERNMENT OF A P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) MOTHER of the detenu, filed the present writ petition, challenging detention of her son, by name, Syed Wahed @ Wahab under Section 3 (2) of the A. P. Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Boot Leggers, Dacoits, Drug offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders and Land Grabbers Act (for brevity 'the Act' ).

(2.) COMMISSIONER of Police, Hyderabad City, passed the impugned order in proceedings in S. B. (1) No. 119/pd-DGS-1/2007, dated 10-03-2008, detaining the son of the petitioner in Central Prison, Chenchalguda. The Detaining Authority referred to three cases; one relating to Kukatpally Police Station and the other two relating to S. R. Nagar Police Station. The detenu was an illiterate and he cannot read either Urdu or English and the substance of the detention order was not even explained to him in the language known to him. It is stated that the grounds of detention were not served upon him and thereby, depriving him from making representation against the order to the Government. The substance of bundle of papers served on the detenu was not explained for making effective representation to the Government under Article 22 (5) of the Constitution of India. The three crimes referred to in the order of detention relating to law and order, but not public order. Cr. No. 14 of 2007 of Kukatpally Police Station, relating to offences punishable under Sections 447,427, 504, 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for brevity 'ipc') and 25 (1) (a) of Arms Act, fall under Chapters XVII and XXII of IPC, but the said offences cannot be treated as activities falling under Section 2 (a) of the Act. Cr. No. 506 of 2007 of S. R. Nagar Police Station, relating to the offences punishable under Sections 147,148, 302 and 120-b r/w 149 IPC of which Section 302 IPC alone would fall under Chapter XVI of IPC. However, the offences relating to Law and Order, but not Public Order. Similarly, Cr. No. 1146 of 2007 of S. R. Nagar Police Station, relating to the offences punishable under Sections 399,402 and 120-B IPC, fall under Chapter XVII of IPC and the said offences would relate to Law and Order, but not Public Order. Therefore, the detention order passed by the 2nd respondent is illegal and is violative of Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

(3.) MR . T. Bali Reddy, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that the grounds of detention have not been read over and explained to the detenu, that there is no material to indicate the same, that the three crimes relied upon by the Detaining Authority, would be Law and Order problem, but not disturbance of Public Order, that the alleged acts did not fit into definition of 'goonda' as defined under the Act 1 of 1986 and hence, he prays to set aside the order of detention.