V. SHANTHA versus STATE OF TELANGANA AND ORS.

Citation: [2017] 4 S.C.R. 358 · Decided: 24-05-2017 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: L. NAGESWARA RAO · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
[2017] 4 S.C.R. 358 
V. SHANTHA 
v. 
STATE OF TELANGANA AND ORS. 
(Criminal Appeal No. 965 of 2017) 
B 
MAY24,2017 
c 
[L. NAGESWARA RAO AND NAVIN SINHA, JJ.) 
Telangana Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, 
Dacoits, Drug Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders and 
Land Grabbers Act, 1986 - ss. 3(1) and (2) r!w s. 2 (a) and (b) -
Order of Preventive detention under - Sustainability of- FIRs 
lodged against distributer of seeds under Penal Code and the Seeds 
Act, 1966 - Allegation that detenue sold spurious chilli seeds which 
did not yield sufficient crops causing wrongful loss to the farmers 
and illegal gains to the accused - Issuance of order of preventive 
D detention under the Act - On appeal, held: Sufficient remedies for 
the offence alleged were available and had been invoked also under 
the ordinary laws of the land for the offence alleged -Recourse to 
normal legal procedure would be time consuming, and would not 
be an effective deterrent to prevent the detenu from indulging in 
E further prejudicial activities - Rhetorical incantation of the words 
"goonda" or "prejudicial to maintenance of public order" cannot 
be sufficient justification to invoke the powers of preventive 
detention _:To classify the detenu as a "goonda" affecting public 
order, because of inadequate yield from the chilli seed sold by him 
and prevent him from moving for bail even is a gross abuse of the 
F statutory power of preventive detention - Grounds of detention are 
ex-facie extraneous to the Act - Thus, the order o.f preventive 
detention is unsustainable and is set aside. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
G 
HELD: 1.1 An order of preventive detention, though based 
on the subjective satisfaction of the detaining au.thority, is 
nonetheless a serious matter, affecting the life and liberty of the 
citizen under Articles 14, 19, 21 and 22 of the Constitution. The 
power being statutory in nature, its exercise has to be within the 
limitations of the statute, and must be exercised for the purpose 
H 
358 
V. SHANTHA v. STATE OF TELANGANA AND ORS. 
359 
the power is conferred. If the power is misused, or abused for A 
collateral purposes, and is based on grounds beyond the statute, 
takes into consideration extraneous or irrelevant materials, it 
would stand vitiated as being in colourable exercise of power. 
[Para 11)(362-A-B] 
1.2 Three FIRs were lodged against the detenu and others 
B 
under Sections 420, 120-B, 34, IPC and Sections 19, 21 of the 
Seeds Act, 1966, alleging selling of spurious chilli seeds. Whether 
the seeds were genuine or not, the extent of the yield, are matters 
to be investigated in the FIRs. Sufficient remedies for the offence 
alleged were, available and had b~en invoked also under the 
ordinary laws of the land for the offence alleged. [Para 12][362-
C 
C-E) 
1.3 The order of preventive detention passed against the 
detenu states that his illegal activities were causing danger to 
poor and small farmers and their safety and financial well-being. 
Recourse to normal legal procedure would be time consuming, D 
and would not be an effective deterrent to prevent the detenu 
from indulging in further prejudicial activities in the business of 
spurious seeds, affecting maintenance of public order. The 
rhetorical incantation of the words "goonda" or "prejudicial to 
maintenance of public order" cannot be sufficient justification to 
invoke the draconian powers of preventive detention. To classify 
E 
the detenu as a "goonda" affecting public order, because of 
inadequate yield from the chilli seed sold by him and prevent him 
from moving for bail even is a gross abuse of the statutory power 
of preventive detention. The grounds of detention are ex-f acie 
extr&neous to the Act. Thus, the order of preventive detention 
is held to be unsustainable and is set aside. [Paras 13, 17] [362-
E-H; 363-AJ 
Munagala Yadamma v. State of A.P. (2012) 2 sc.c 386 
: [2012] 1 SCR 26; Rekha v. State of Tamil Nadu & 
F 
Am: (2011) 5 SCC 244 : (2011] 4 SCR 740 - referred 
G 
to. 
Case Law Reference 
[2011] 4 SCR 740 
(2012] 1 SCR 26 
referred to 
referred to 
Para3 
Para 14 
H 
360 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2017] 4 S.C.R. 
A 
CRJMINALAPPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 
B 
965of2017. 
From the Judgment and Order dated I 0.04.2017 of the High Court 
of Judicature at Hyderabad for the State ofTelangana and the State of 
Andhra Pradesh in WP No. 3671 of2017. 
Ms. Prerna Singh (for Guntur Prabhakar), Ad
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.