Munagala Yadamma vs State Of A.P. & Ors

REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.67 OF 2012 [@ SLP(Crl) No(s).8114 of 2011]

MUNAGALA YADAMMA Appellant(s)

VERSUS

STATE OF A.P. & ORS. Respondent(s)

O R D E R

Leave granted.

2. The appellant's husband, Shri Munagala Anjaiah, son of

Gandaian, resident of Ranga Reddy District in Andhra Pradesh,

was served with a Detention Order dated 15th February, 2011,

under Section 3(1) read with Section 2A and B of the Andhra

Pradesh Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Boot Leggers

Dacoits, Drug Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders

and Land Grabbers Act, 1986.

3. In the Detention Order, the Detaining Authority

indicated that the detenue was a bootlegger within the meaning

of Section 2(b) of the aforesaid Act and that recourse to

Crl.A.67/12 2

normal legal procedure would involve more time and would not

be an effective deterrent in preventing the detenue from

indulging in further prejudicial activities.

4. It has been mentioned that the detenue was involved in

several cases of violation of the provisions of Section 7A

read with Section 8(C) of the Andhra Pradesh Prohibition Act,

1995, involving illicit distillation of liquor.

5. The Detention Order passed by the Collector and

District Magistrate, Ranga Reddy District, was questioned by

the wife of the detenue by way of WP No.13313 of 2011 before

the Andhra Pradesh High Court, which dismissed the same on the

ground that under the normal laws, it would be difficult to

check the activities of the detenue and, accordingly, the

order of detention was justified.

6. The order of the High Court has been challenged before

us in this appeal.

7. On behalf of the appellant, it has been urged that the

ground taken for issuance of the Detention Order was improper

and not available in view of the reasoned judgment of this

Court in the case of Rekha Vs. State of Tamil Nadu through

Secretary to Government and Anr., 2011(5)SCC 244, where a

similar question had arisen and in paragraph 23 of the

Crl.A.67/12 3

judgment, a three-Judge Bench of this Court was of the view

that criminal cases were already going on against the detenue

under various provisions of the Penal Code, 1860, as well as

under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940, and that if he was

found guilty, he would be convicted and given appropriate

sentence. Their Lordships also indicated that in their

opinion, the ordinary law of the land was sufficient to deal

with the situation, and hence, recourse to the preventive

detention law was illegal.

8. It has been submitted by Mr. Anil Kumar Tandale,

learned advocate appearing for the appellant, that in the

instant case also all the offences alleged to have been

committed by the husband of the appellant, were under the

provisions of the A.P. Prohibition Act, 1995, for which the

normal law was sufficient to deal with the offence, if proved.

He submitted that the Detaining Authority had wrongfully

taken the easy way out and had resorted to an order of

preventive detention in order to avoid having to investigate

the cases filed against the appellant.

9. On behalf of the State of Andhra Pradesh, another

decision of a two-Judge Bench of this Court in the case of

G.Reddelah Vs. The Govt.of Andhra Pradesh and Anr.,

Crl.A.67/12 4

[2011(10)SCALE 224], was brought to our notice, in which while

referring to the three-Judge Bench decision in Rekha's case

(supra) their Lordships were of the opinion that in view of

the factual position and the enormous activities of the

detenue, violating various provisions of the Indian Penal Code

and the Andhra Pradesh Prohibition Act and Rules, continuous

and habitual pursuing of the same type of offences damaging

the wealth of the nation, the decision in Rekha's case (supra)

was not applicable to the facts of the said case.

Accordingly, the order passed by the Detaining Authority, as

approved by the Division Bench and upheld by the High Court,

did not require any interference.

10. Having considered the submissions made on behalf of the

respective parties, we are unable to accept the submissions

made on behalf of the State in view of the fact that the

decision in Rekha's case (supra), in our view, clearly covers

the facts of this case as well. The offences complained of

against the appellant are of a nature which can be dealt with

under the ordinary law of the land. Taking recourse to the

provisions of preventive detention is contrary to the

constitutional guarantees enshrined in Articles 19 and 21 of

the Constitution and sufficient grounds have to be made out

Crl.A.67/12 5

by the detaining authorities to invoke such provisions. In

fact, recently, in Criminal Appeal No.26 of 2012, Yumman Ongbi

Lembi Leima Vs. State of Manipur & Ors., we had occasion to

consider the same issue and the three-Judge Bench had held

that the personal liberty of an individual is the most

precious and prized right guaranteed under the Constitution in

Part III thereof. The State has been granted the power to

curb such rights under criminal laws, as also under the laws

of preventive detention, which, therefore, are required to be

exercised with due caution as well as upon a proper

appreciation of the facts as to whether such acts are in any

way prejudicial to the interest and the security of the State

and its citizens, or seek to disturb public law and order,

warranting the issuance of such an order.

11. No doubt, the offences alleged to have been committed

by the appellant are such as to attract punishment under the

Andhra Pradesh Prohibition Act, but that in our view has to be

done under the said laws and taking recourse to preventive

detention laws would not be warranted. Preventive detention

involves detaining of a person without trial in order to

prevent him/her from committing certain types of offences.

But such detention cannot be made a substitute for the

Crl.A.67/12 6

ordinary law and absolve the investigating authorities of

their normal functions of investigating crimes which the

detenue may have committed. After all, preventive detention

in most cases is for a year only and cannot be used as an

instrument to keep a person in perpetual custody without

trial. Accordingly, while following the three-Judge Bench

decision in Rekha's case (supra), we allow the appeal and set

aside the order passed by the High Court dated 20th July, 2011,

and also quash the Detention Order dated 15th February, 2011,

issue by the Collector and District Magistrate, Ranga Reddy

District, Andhra Pradesh.

12. This order should not in any way prejudice the outcome

of the pending cases against the appellant.

........................J. (ALTAMAS KABIR)

.........................J. (SURINDER SINGH NIJJAR)

NEW DELHI;

January 05, 2012.