COLLECTOR & DIST. MAGISTRATE AND ORS. versus S. SULTAN

Citation: [2008] 5 S.C.R. 764 · Decided: 31-03-2008 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

[2008] 5 S.C.R. 764 
COLLECTOR & DIST. MAGISTRATE AND ORS. 
~ 
v. 
S. SULTAN 
(Criminal Appeal No. 567 of 2008) 
B 
MARCH 31, 2008 
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND P. SATHASIVAM, JJ.] 
>-
Preventive Detention: 
A.P Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, 
c Dacoits, Drug Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders 
and Land Grabbers Act, 1986- ss.3(1), 3(2) rlw s.2(a) and (g) 
- Order of detention - Indicating instances in respect of 
offences covered by definition of the expression 'goonda' in 
s.2(g) - Not based on stale incidents as alleged -Activities of 
D detenu prejudicial to "public order''- Hence, High Court not 
justified in quashing the detention order in exercise of its writ 
jurisdiction - However, period of detention as fixed in the 
..,, 
detention order already over - State Government to consider 
the need for detaining the detenu for the balance period 
E covered by the original order of detention - Constitution of 
India, 1950 - Arts. 22 & 226. 
Words and Phrases - 'Law and order', 'public order' and 
'security of the State' - Meaning of - Discussed. 
F 
Writ petitions were filed before the High Court 
challenging the order of detention passed under ss.3(1 ), 
3(2) r/w s.2(a) and (g) of the A.P. Prevention of Dangerous 
~ 
Activities of Bootleggers, Dacoits, Drug Offenders, 
Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders and Land Grabbers 
G Act, 1986. It was contended that the order of detention 
was illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional and violative of 
Article 22 of the Constitution; that the instances referred 
to, did not affect the "public order" at all, and, in any event, 
since some of the grounds related to offences punishable 
;.. . 
H 
764 
COLLECTOR & DIST. MAGISTRATE AND ORS. v. 
765 
S. SULTAN 
~ 
under the Explosive Substances Act, 1908, detention A 
under the Act was impermissible. High Court quashed the 
order of detention. Hence the present appeals; 
Allowing the appeals, the Court 
HELD: 1. In all the instances given in the grounds of B 
.. 
detention, the indicated offences are punishable under 
....4. 
either Chapters XVI or XVII and/or XXll of the IPC. In 
addition, in certain instances reference has been made 
to offences punishable under the Explosive Act. 
Therefore, it is not correct as observed by the High Court c 
that some of the grounds related to offences punishable 
under Sections 3 and 5 of the Explosive Act onl.y. It is really 
not so. Even otherwise, all instances indicated are in 
respect of offences covered by the definition of t'1e 
expression 'goonda'. The test is whether the detenu is a D 
'goonda' in terms of Section 2(g) of the A.P. Prevention of 
Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Dacoits, Drug 
)( 
Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders and Land 
Grabbers Act, 1986. Reference to other provisions does 
not affect that conclusion. There may be cases where E 
offences may be punishable under different statutes. 
Inevitably, therefore, reference has to be made to them 
when giving details of an incident. That will not be a factor 
to render detention invalid. [Paras 8, 9] [770-C, D, E, F] 
2. So far as the stand that incidents were stale, it is to. F 
be noted that most of the incidents highlighted are of 
i" 
November 2005. The order of detention was passed on 
20.3.2006. The State Government approved the order of 
detention on 28.3.2006. The Advisory Board confirmed the 
order of detention and based on the recommendation of G 
the Advisory Board, the Government confirmed the order 
of detention for a period of 12 months from the date of 
detention. That being so, it cannot be said that the order 
. 
...( 
of detention was based on stale incidents. [Para 10] 
[770-F, G; 771-A] 
H 
,
766 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2008] 5 S. C.R. 
A 
3.1. So far as the question as to whether the public 
order was involved, the grounds of detention elaborately 
described the acts which created dangerous and 
terrorized situations in the village and frequently disturbed 
public peace and public order because of the acts of 
B violence and danger was caused to the lives of the 
villagers. In all these instances deadly weapons were used 
' 
causing injuries to various persons. [Para 11] [771-A, B] 
> 
3.2. While the expression 'law and order' is wider in · 
scope inasmuch as contravention of law always affects 
c order. 'Public order' has a narrower ambit, and public 
order could be affected by only such contravention which 
affects the community or the public at large. Public ord

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.