MUNAGALA YADAMMA versus STATE OF A.P. & ORS.

Citation: [2012] 1 S.C.R. 26 · Decided: 05-01-2012 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ALTAMAS KABIR, S.S. NIJJAR · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 3 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
[2012] 1 S.C.R. 26 
MUNAGALA YADAMMA 
v. 
STATE OF A.P. & ORS. 
(Criminal Appeal No.67 of 2012) 
JANUARY 05, 2012 
[ALTAMAS KABIR AND SURINDER SINGH NIJJAR, JJ] 
Andhra Pradesh Prevention of Dangerous Activities of 
Boot Leggers Dacoits, Drug Offenders, Goondas, Immoral 
C Traffic Offenders and Land Grabbers Act, 1986 - ss. 3(1) read 
with s. 2A and B - Detention Order under, against the 
appellant's husband - Also stated therein that several cases 
gomg against detenue for violation of the provisions of s. 7 A 
rw s. B(C) of the Andhra Pradesh Prohibition Act, 1995 - Writ 
D petition - High Court upheld the detention order on the ground 
that under the normal laws, it would be difficult to check the 
activities of the detenue - On appeal, held: Ordinary law of the 
land was sufficient to deal with the offences complained of 
against the appellant - Offences alleged to have been 
E committed by the appellant were such as to attract 
punishment under the Andhra Pradesh Prohibition Act, but 
that 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 
F trial in order tO prevent him/her from committing certain types 
of offences - But such detention cannot be made a substitute 
for the ordinary law and absolve the investigating authorities 
of their normal functions of investigating crimes which the 
detenue may have committed - Thus. order passed by the 
G High Court set aside and the detention order quashed -
Andhra Pradesh Prohibition Act, 1995. 
H 
Rekha Vs. State of Tamil Nadu through Secretary to 
Government and Anr. 2011 (5) SCC 244; Yumman Ongbi 
26 
MUNAGALA YADAMMA v. STATE OF A.P. & ORS. 
27 
Lembi Leima Vs. State of Manipur & Ors. Criminal Appeal A 
No.26 of 2012- relied on. 
G.Reddelah Vs. The Govt.of Andhra Pradesh and Anr. 
2011 (10) SCALE 224 - referred to. 
Case Law Reference: 
B 
2011 (10) SCALE 224 Referred to. 
Para 9 
2011 (5) sec 244 
Relied on. 
Para 10, 11 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal C 
No. 67 of 2012. 
From the Judgment & Order dated 20.7.2011 of the High 
Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in Writ Petition (Crl.) 
No.13313 of2011. 
Anil Kumar Tandale for the Appellant. 
I. Venkatanarayana, G.N. Reddy, C. Kannan, Ravi 
Shankar for the Respondent. 
The following Order of the Court was delivered 
ORDER 
1. 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 
D 
E 
F 
B of the Andhra Pradesh Prevention of Dangerous Activities G 
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 
H 
28 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(2012] 1 S.C.R. 
A Section 2(b) of the aforesaid Act and that recourse to normal 
legal procedure would involve more time and would not be an 
effective deterrent in preventing the detenue from indulging in 
further prejudicial activities. 
B 
4. It has been mentioned that the detenue was involved in 
several cases of violation of the provisions of Section 7 A 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 
C 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 
D of detention was justified. 
6. The order of the High Court has been challenged before 
us in this appeal. 
E 
7. On behalf of the appellant, it has been urged that the 
ground tak.en 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 (S)SCC 244, where 
F a similar question had arisen and in paragraph 23 of the 
judgment, a three-Judge Bench of tt:is 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

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