Andhra Pradesh Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Boot Leggers, Dacoits, Drug-Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders and Land Grabbers Act, 1986 hereinafter referred to as the Act 1 of 1986. - Goonda - Detention orders are passed - challanged - their lordships held that the Detaining Authority when order is passed on series of offences , he has to consider whether the detenu is on bail in more than several cases - whether charge sheets are filed -else the detaining authority could be misled into believing that in spite of filing of the charge sheets, the respective detenu did not mend his ways in spite of having been involved in several cases. - detention orders are liable to be quashed on that ground as well.-2015 Telangana & A.P. msklawreports





The mother of the detenu is the petitioner herein and seeks a
Mandamus to declare the detention order dated 27.08.2014 passed by
the second respondent, as confirmed  he is a goonda
within the meaning of Section 2(g) of the Andhra Pradesh Prevention
of Dangerous Activities of Boot Leggers, Dacoits,
Drug-Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Ofby the first respondent under
G.O.Rt.No.3405 General Administration (Law and Order) Department
dated 10.10.2014 as illegal and unconstitutional and seeks
consequential release of the detenu Mr. Vikram Mehandi alias Vikram.

the detenu was detained on the ground thatfenders and Land
Grabbers Act, 1986 hereinafter referred to as the Act 1 of 1986.
The detention order was stated to have been reviewed by the Advisory
Board on 26.09.2014 satisfying itself that there is sufficient cause for
detention. 
Accordingly, the Government confirmed the order of
detention and issued the aforesaid G.O., detaining the petitioner for a
period of 12 months from the date of detention i.e. 01.09.2014.
The order of detention served on the detenu shows that there are
20 instances from 02.08.2012 to 14.07.2014 wherein the involvement
of the detenu was shown in 10 instances.
In para 4 of the affidavit, the
petitioner has narrated the manner in which and the place from where
the detenu was taken into custody by the Task Force Police and it is
alleged that the detenu was later shown to have been involved in
various offences while he was away at Myanmar and not in India.

1.      The order of detention passed by the second
respondent is without jurisdiction inasmuch as the
Officer, who passed the order, was only an in-charge
District Collector in the absence of regular Collector
and District Magistrate and as such, under Section
3(2) of the AP Act 1 of 1986 only the officer delegated
with power by the State Government viz. the Collector
and District Magistrate could have passed the
detention order and not by an officer, who is merely
holding the post as in-charge.

2.      The detention order and the material in support
thereof, which was furnished to the detenu was in
English and Telugu languages whereas the detenu is
conversant only with Hindi language and the in the
absence of the translation of the said documents in
Hindi language, the detenu has lost a valuable right of
making a representation against the detention.

In my view, it was absolutely essential for the detaining authority to
have been apprised of all the relevant facts and particularly, where a
series of criminal cases against the detenu form the basis of the
grounds of detention. It was, therefore, imperative for the detaining
authority to be apprised of the fact that the respective detenu was
released on bail in more than one crime listed in the grounds, as that
would, inter alia, lead to an inference that a competent criminal Court
has chosen to enlarge on bail rather than holding the detenu in
custody. 
whether the investigation is in preliminary stage or
whether the charge sheet is filed is also relevant information required
to be apprised to the detaining authority and/or else the detaining
authority could be misled into believing that in spite of filing of the
charge sheets, the respective detenu did not mend his ways
in spite of having been involved in several cases.
Obviously, in none
of the cases, the charge sheets are filed and the assumption of the
detaining authority in that respect to the contrary clearly vitiates the
detention order. In my view, therefore, point No.3 also has to be
answered in the affirmative and the respective detention orders are
liable to be quashed on that ground as well..-2015 Telangana & A.P. msklawreports


Popular posts from this blog

Court fee - Sec.34 of A.P.C.F & S.V.Act - partition of Plaints-A and B-Schedule properties, in the manner pleaded by her, and for grant of future profits. Plaint-A Schedule comprised of, four items of immovable properties, and Plaint-B Schedule comprised of, nine items of jewellery. Pleading that the parties are in joint possession of the said properties, the petitioner paid Court-fee of Rs. 200/- under Sub-section (2) of Section 34 of the A.P. Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1956 (for short 'the Act'). The trial Court returned the plaint, through its order dated 23-6-2006, directing the petitioner herein, to pay Court fee on movable properties, on her shares, as per the Act, within the time stipulated by it.= In the instant case, the petitioner asserted that, herself and the respondents are in joint possession of the Plaints-A and B-Schedule properties. In a way, the trial Court was satisfied, that the immovable properties mentioned in Plaint-A schedule are in joint possession, and in that view of the matter, it did not insist on payment of ad-valorem Court-fee, on such items. It, however, took a different view, as regards the movable properties. Neither from the plaint, nor from the endorsement made by the trial Court, it is found that there is any distinction, as to the nature of rights claimed, in respect of Plaint-A Schedule properties, on the one hand, and Plaint-B schedule properties, on the other hand. In fact, the nature and incidence of possession, of an immovable property, gives rise to, relatively greater consequences of law, than the possession of an item of movable property. The possession of an item of immovable property can be said to be more assertive, firm and lasting, than the one, of movable property. The endorsement made by the trial Court cannot be sustained, either on law, or on facts. 2015 A.P.(2006)MSKLAWREPORTS

partition of Plaints-A and B-Schedule properties, in the manner pleaded by her, and for grant of future profits. Plaint-A Schedule comprised of, four items of immovable properties, and Plaint-B Schedule comprised of, nine items of jewellery. Pleading that the parties are in joint possession of the said properties, the petitioner paid Court-fee of Rs. 200/- under Sub-section (2) of Section 34 of the A.P. Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1956 (for short 'the Act'). The trial Court returned the plaint, through its order dated 23-6-2006, directing the petitioner herein, to pay Court fee on movable properties, on her shares, as per the Act, within the time stipulated by it.= In the instant case, the petitioner asserted that, herself and the respondents are in joint possession of the Plaints-A and B-Schedule properties. In a way, the trial Court was satisfied, that the immovable properties mentioned in Plaint-A schedule are in joint possession, and in that view of the matter, it
Read more

Sec.482 Cr.P.C. - Section 8 of the Andhra Pradesh Public Examination (Prevention of Malpractice and Unfair Means) Act, 1997 - Part B question Paper was missed ( said to be distributed to A1 along with other students by A2 an invigilator ) - Charge - she was negligent in performing the invigilation duties. - Their Lordships held that Mere negligence in performing invigilation duties, does not attract the offence set-forth in the Act. Therefore, in absence of any allegation that the petitioner herein has committed the offence set out in Section 5 of the Act, she cannot be subjected to prosecution for which the penalty has been provided under Section 8 of the Act.- Quashed the criminal proceedings - 2015 Telganga & A.P. msklawreports

Law  :- Sec.482 of Cr.P.C. Sub  :- Quash the criminal proceedings Offence  :-Section 8 of the Andhra Pradesh Public Examination (Prevention of Malpractice and Unfair Means) Act, 1997 Summary : -  The investigation revealed that clandestinely question paper Part-B has been removed from the exam hall and it was passed on to Accused No.1 for eventually facilitating in malpractice. However, the police after investigation, filed the charge-sheet.   The petitioner (A-2) along with A-1 is sought to be proceeded against under Section 8 of the Andhra Pradesh Public Examination (Prevention of Malpractice and Unfair Means) Act, 1997 (Act for short).     Section 5 of the Act reads as under: Prevention of leakage by person entrusted with examination works: No person who is entrusted with any work pertaining to a public examination shall, except where he is permitted by virtue of his duties so to do, directly or indirectly divulge or cause to be divulged or make known to any o
Read more

Order 38 Rule 5, only the properties of the defendant can be attached and not the properties in the hands of garnishee has no statutory support nor the support of any precedent.-2015 A.P.(2004) MSKLAWREPORTS

Order 38 Rule 5, only the properties of the defendant can be attached and not the properties in the hands of garnishee has no statutory support nor the support of any precedent. "Order 38, Rule 7 C.P.C. provides that the attachment under Order 38, Rule 5 shall be made in the manner provided for the attachment of property in execution of a decree. It is trite, the attachment envisaged under Order 38, Rule 5 CPC is an attachment before judgment. The restriction found by the learned Single Judge that under Order 38 Rule 5, only the properties of the defendant can be attached and not the properties in the hands of garnishee has no statutory support nor the support of any precedent. The attachment of debts due to the defendant from third party could be attached before judgment under Order 38 Rule 5 CPC.-2015 A.P.(2004) MSKLAWREPORTS
Read more