LexG. REDDEIAH versus THE GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH & ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B [2011] 12 S.C.R. 454 G. REDDEIAH v. THE GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH & ANR. (Criminal Appeal No. 1761 of 2011) SEPTEMBER 9, 2011 [P. SATHASIVAM AND DR. B.S. CHAUHAN, JJ.] Andhra Pradesh Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Boot Leggers, Dacoits, Drug Offenders, Goondas, Immoral C Traffic Offenders and Land Grabbers Act, 1986: s.3(1) - Detention order - Detaining Authority found that the detenue was habitually indulging in trespassing forest area, illicit cutting, felling, smuggling and transporting red-sanders trees and committing theft of forest wealth as many as eight times o within a period of one year- Conclusion of Detaining authority approved by Government and upheld by the High Court - On appeal, held: The grounds of detention showed that the Detaining Authority, after scrutinising all the details including various orders of arrest and release, bail on various dates and E notings held that the detenue was a master-mind in organising the felling of red-sanders trees owned by the Government and also providing vehicles for illegally transporting the red-sanders wood, hiring of labourers from the fringe forest villages and responsible for destruction of F valuable governmental property and the provisions of normal law were not sufficient in ordinary course to deal firmly because of his habitual nature - After satisfying all aspects -including the fact that the detenue was in jail for sometime and the factum of his release from the jail in 4 criminal cases, G Detaining Authority passed an order of detention with a view to prevent him from further indulging into such offences - There was no infirmity either in the reasoning of the Detaining Authority or procedure followed by it - The detenue was afforded adequate opportunity at every stage and there was H 454 G. REDDEIAH v. GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA 455 PRADESH & ANR. no violation of any of the safeguards - In view of enormous A activities of the detenue violating various provisions of /PC, the A.P. Act and the Rules, and his habituality in pursuing the same type of offences, the reasoning of the Detaining Authority as approved by the Government and upheld by the High Court is justified - A.P. Forest Act, 1967 - A.P. Sandal B Wood & Red Sanders Transit Rules, 1969 -Penal Code, 1860. Prevention detention - Concept of - Held: The detention is not to punish detenue for something he has done but to C prevent him from doing it. The pros.ecution. case was that the detenue was habitually committing forest offences, particularly, felling, cutting and smuggling of red sanders wood causing loss to national wealth and was involved in such 8 cases D within a period of 1 year. The Detaining Authority held that the detenue was a goonda under Section 2(g) of the Aridhra Pradesh Prevention of Dangerqus Activities of Efoot Leggers, Dacoits, Drug Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders and Land Grabbers Act, 1986. E The brother-in-law of the detenue filed a writ of habeas corpus before the High Court, which was dismissed. The instant appeal was filed challenging the order of the High Court. Dismissing the appeal, the Court F HELD: 1. Section 3 of the of the Andhra Pradesh Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Boot Leggers, Dacoits, Drug Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders and Land Grabbers Act, 1986 enables the G Government to detain certain persons whose activities are prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. If the Government/Detaining Authority is able to satisfy that a person either by himself or in association with other H 456 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 12 S.C.R. A members habitually commits or attempts or abets such commission of offence punishable under IPC, A.P. Act and the Rules subject to satisfying Section 3 of the 1986 Act, he can be detained in terms of the said Act. The essential concept of preventive detention is that the B detention of a person is not to punish him for something he has done but to prevent him from doing it. [Para 6, 7] [465-8; 466-8-D] Haradhan Saha vs. State of West Bengal & Ors. (1975) c 3 sec 198: 1975 (1) SCR 778 - relied on. 2. A reading of the grounds of detention clearly indicated that the detenue had been indulging in various activities in felling and smuggling red-sanders and he was habitually committing the same and was unmindful D of wastage of national forest wealth and public order. It also showed that it was not a sol
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.