Criminal Appeal No. 965 of 2017, (Arising out of SLP(Crl.) No. 3651 of 2017). Case: V. Shantha Vs State of Telangana and Ors.. Supreme Court
|Parts:||V. Shantha Vs State of Telangana and Ors.|
|Issuing Organization:||Supreme Court|
|Resolution Date:||May 24, 2017|
|Case:||Criminal Appeal No. 965 of 2017, (Arising out of SLP(Crl.) No. 3651 of 2017)|
|Ley aplicable:||Indian Penal Code - Sections 420, 120B, 34; Telangana Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Dacoits, Drug Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders and Land Grabbers Act, 1986|
|Judges:||L. Nageswara Rao and Navin Sinha, JJ.|
Navin Sinha, J.
The appellant assails the order of preventive detention of her husband dated 17.10.2016, passed by Respondent No.2, under the Telangana Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Dacoits, Drug Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders and Land Grabbers Act, 1986 (Act No.1 of 1986) (Telangana Adaptation) Order, 2015, (G.O.Ms.No.124, Dated17.03.2015) (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act').
Ms. Prerna Singh, learned counsel for the appellant, submits that an order of preventive detention is a serious matter affecting the liberty of the citizen. It cannot be resorted to when sufficient remedies are available under the general laws of the land for any omission or commission under such laws. The detenu was already being prosecuted under the penal code and the Seeds Act. Reliance was placed on Rekha vs. State of Tamil Nadu & Anr., (2011) 5 SCC 244.
It was next submitted that the detenu was already in custody in two other cases. The order of detention does not consider the same, setting out special reasons for an order of preventive detention, with regard to a person already in custody. The reasoning that there was every likelihood of his being released on bail, in view of an earlier bail order in a similar case, is flawed, as the detenu has not even filed any application for bail in these two cases.
Ms. Bina Madhavan, learned counsel for the respondents, opposing the application, submits that the grounds of detention cannot be seen simpliciter as individual wrongs amenable to ordinary laws. It has the potential to disturb maintenance of public order. More than one farmer had lodged complaints with regard to the spurious seeds sold to them. Wrongful loss had been caused to the poor farmers, and the detenu had acquired illegal gains at their expense.
We have considered the submissions. The order of preventive detention has been made under section 3 (1) and (2) read with section 2 (a) and (b) of the Act.
Section 3 of the Act empowers the Government if satisfied, inter alia, with respect to a "Goonda" to detain such person with the view to preventing him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order.
Section 2(a) of the Act defines "acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order" as follows:
"2(a) "acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order" means when a bootlegger, a dacoit, a drug-offender, a goonda, an immoral traffic offender or a land-grabber...
To continue readingREQUEST YOUR FREE TRIAL