SAMA ARUNA versus STATE OF TELANGANA AND ANR.

Citation: [2017] 4 S.C.R. 52 · Decided: 03-05-2017 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.A. BOBDE · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 4 judgment(s) · cites 5 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2017] 4 S.C.R. 52 
A 
SAMAARUNA 
v. 
,. 
STATE OF TELANGANA AND ANR. 
(Criminal Appeal No. 885 of2017) 
B. 
MAY03,2017 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
[S. A. BOBDE AND L. NAGESWARA RAO, JJ.] 
Preventive Detention: 
Detention under s. 3 (2) of Telangana Prevention of 
Dangero·us Activities of Bootleggers, Dacoits, Drug Offenders, 
Goondas, Immoral Tl·affic Offenders and Land Grabbers Act, 1986 
- Propriety of - Held: The essential concept of preventive detention 
is that the detention of a person is not to punish him for something 
he has done, but to prevent him from doing it - The power to detain 
under 1986 Act can be exercised only for preventing a person fiwn 
engaging in, or pursuing or taking some action which adversely 
affects or is likely to affectthe maintenance of public order - Though 
the conduct and activities of the detenu in the past must be taken 
into account, but only those activities so far back can be considered 
which furnish a cause for preventive detention in the present - Jn 
the present case, detention order was passed on the grounds which 
are stale and which could not have been considered as relevant for 
arriving at the subjective satisfaction that the detenu must be detained 
- Detention order is set aside. 
Judicial Review: 
Review of detention order - Scope of - Held: While reviewing 
detention order, Court does not substitute its judgment for the 
decision of the executive - But the Court has a duty to enquire that 
the decision of the executive is made upoi1 matters laid down by the 
statute as relevant for reaching such decision. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1.1. The detention order mentions six cases. Two 
incidents are about three to two years before the detention order 
dated 23.11.2016. The other incidents are about 9 to 14 years 
before the detention order. Peculiarly, though the first two 
52 
SAMA ARUNA v. STATE OF TELANGANA AND ANR. 
incidents are mentioned, the detaining authority has not relied 
on them as grounds of detention. The detaining alithority has 
relied on the four other cases as grounds of detention. The report 
in these cases was apparently lodged in tlte year 2016 for some 
reason best known to the police. However, that is not of much 
.consequence since the FIR is in respect of incidents which are 
,. old, 9 to l4 years old. [Paras 7, 8) [58-B-C; 59-A-B] 
1.2. The detaining authority has pointedly referred to only 
four offences of criminal conspiracy, cheating, kidnapping and 
extortion. In three out of these four cases he has. been gra1ited 
bail. The State accepted these orders. Each of them are beyond 
9~years, up to 14 years, before the detention orders. The detaining 
__ J!llJJtoEity has then gone to consider those grounds, to arrive at 
the sathfaction that the detenu needs to be detained in 2016. 
These grounds are so stale al1d mildewed that the exe1·cise of 
the power of detention based on them appears ma/a fide in law. 
[Paras 9, 10 and 11) (59-C-F) 
1.3. The four cases which are old and therefore, stale, pertain 
to the period frotn 2002 to '2007. They pertain, to land grabbing 
and hence, the Court is not inclined to consider the impact of 
those cases Oil Public order etc. They ought to have been 
excluded from consideration on the ground that they are stale 
and could not have been used to detain the detenu in the year 
2016 under the Telangana Prevention of Dangerous.Activities of 
Bootleggers, Dacoits, Drug Offenders, Goondas, Immoral traffic 
.Offenders and Land Grabbers Act, 1986 which empowers the 
detaining authority to do so with a view to prevent a person from 
acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of-public order. 
[Para 12) [59-G-H) 
1.4. Mere reference to two other cases which are 2-J years 
old cannot be considered as relevant and proximate grounds of 
detention. The detaining authority itself has not done so. Every , 
statement in the detention order must be taken to have been 
made responsibly. Where the detaining authority has detailed 4 
cases and stated that these have been considered as the grounds 
of detention, it must be considered as true-speaking. Moreover, 
. those incidents appeared to be cases of ordinary criminal trespass 
53 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
54 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2017] 4 S.C.R. 
which would not, in any way, be of much significance since they 
do not deal with the disruption of any public order.which is relevant 
under the law dealing with preventive detention. [Para 

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