http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 3  

CASE NO.: Appeal (crl.)  1451 of 2004

PETITIONER: The Collector & District Magistrate, W.G.Dist.Eluru,Andhra Pradesh & Ors.

RESPONDENT: Sangala Kondamma

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 09/12/2004

BENCH: N.Santosh Hegde & S.B.Sinha

JUDGMENT: J U D G M E N T

            (Arising out of S.L.P. (Crl) No. 5341 of 2003)

SANTOSH HEGDE, J.

Heard learned counsel for the parties. Leave granted.          The  husband  of the respondent herein by name Shi   Sangala Srinivasa Rao a resident of West Godavari  was detained   by an order of the District Collector made under Section 3 (1) (2)   read with Section 2 (a) & (b)  of the Andhra Pradesh Prevention of  Dangerous Activities  of Bootleggers, Dacoits, Drug Offenders,  Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders and Land Grabbers Act, 1986  (the Act).  The respondent-State Government  approved the said  detention on 24th of January, 2003. The Advisory Committee after  considering the material on record  and hearing the detenue  in  person  approved  the said detention  order.  On the basis of the   Report  of the Advisory Board, the Government confirmed the  detention for a period of 12 months from the date of his detention  which was from 15th of January, 2003.                   The said detention order came to be challenged by the wife  of the detenue who is the respondent herein, before the Andhra  Pradesh High Court by way of a writ petition. The High Court by  the impugned order has allowed the writ petition setting aside the  order of  detention, hence  this appeal before us. The High Court came to the conclusion that two of the  grounds of detention out of five were stale grounds and since the  said two stale grounds could not be separated from the other  grounds, the satisfaction of the detaining authority got vitiated,  therefore, the order of detention cannot be sustained. The order of detention was based on the following grounds: (1)     That the detenue was involved in criminal case Crime  No.400/2000-01 dated 10.1.2001 involving 20 ltrs. of ID  liquor in which case the detenue had absconded from the  scene of offence leaving behind the scooter used in  transport of ID liquor. The said ID liquor on chemical  analysis was found to be illicitly distilled and was  injurious to health. (2)     He was involved in Crime No.173/1999-2000 dated  17.1.2000 involving 20 ltrs. of ID liquor in the form of  200 arrack sachets which liquor was also found to be  illicitly distilled and was injurious to health. (3)     He was involved in Crime No.590/2001-02 dated  3.2.2002 involving 40 ltrs. of ID liquor which liquor was  also found to be illicitly distilled and was injurious to  health.    

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 3  

(4)     He was involved in Crime No.406/2002-03 dated  6.10.2002 involving 20 ltrs. of ID liquor in the form of  200 arrack sachets containing illicitly distilled liquor  which was also found to be injurious to health and unfit  for human consumption. (5)     He was involved in Crime No.440/2002-03 dated  25.10.2002 involving 20 ltrs. of ID liquor which was  also illicitly distilled and was injurious to health and  unfit for human consumption.         As stated above, the order of detention was passed on  15.1.2003 about three months after the last of the grounds referred  to herein above and after receiving necessary proposals in this  regard.  

       Learned counsel appearing for the appellants-State  contended  that the object of the Act was to prevent  a person from  indulging  in any one of the activities mentioned  therein and  bootlegging was one such activity.  He contended that to establish   the apprehension  of the authorities  that there is a likelihood  of  the detenue indulging  in such dangerous activities, it is necessary   to satisfy the detaining authority   with chain of similar events   which could give rise  to a satisfaction  of the detaining authority   that the detenue  is likely to indulge  in such activities in the near  future also. In that process  some of the facts narrated individually   may not be sufficient for the said authority to form an opinion as to  the need  for such a detention.  Therefore, the proposing  authority  will have to place materials  before the  detaining authority of a  series of incidents  which can satisfy the detaining authority the  need  for such detention.  In that process some of the  incidents/grounds  may not be proximate  to the order of detention.   If they are proximate  to each other the fact that initial few  incidents are not proximate to the order of detention, would not  make the order of detention bad. Therefore, the High Court was  not justified in picking two facts narrated in the grounds as being  stale and setting aside the order of detention.          Learned counsel appearing for the respondent supported the  judgment of the High Court and contended that it is not open to the  detaining authority to rely upon stale incidents in conjunction with  some other incidents which may be proximate to the order of  detention to make  an order of detention. The detention order being  one based on subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority it  will not be possible for a court to find out how far the stale incident  influenced the mind of the detaining authority, hence the  consideration of such stale incident along with some other  proximate incidents certainly would vitiate the subjective  satisfaction of the detaining authority. He contended that the State  enactment does not contain any provision similar to Section 5A of  the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of  Smuggling Act, 1974 which permits the court considering an order  of detention to severe the stale grounds from grounds proximate to  the order of detention and in the absence of such provision in the  local act, the High Court was justified in setting aside the order of  detention. He also pointed out that the High Court correctly relied  upon certain earlier judgments of the said court while passing the  impugned judgment.         We notice from the preamble and statements and objects of  the Act that it aims to prevent a person from indulging in certain  illegal activities enumerated therein by his preventive detention.  For the said purpose, the detaining authority must be satisfied that  the proposed detenue is likely to indulge in such illegal activities in  future also. This is a satisfaction that could be reasonably arrived at  by the detaining authority only by examining the material that is  produced by the authority proposing his detention. In such a  process, a detaining authority  may not always take into  consideration a stray or solitary incident which may not give rise to

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 3  

a reasonable apprehension or satisfaction as to such future act of  the proposed detenue. Therefore, it is necessary for the authority  proposing the detention of a person under the Act to produce such  material which shows  the  continuous previous illegal activities of  the proposed detenue which would satisfy the detaining authority  of the need for detaining such a person. In other words, the  material produced by the authority proposing the detention should  form a chain of incidents last of which will have to be proximate to  the date of proposed detention while other acts  must be proximate   to each other. Thus, if the facts placed before the detaining   authority  are  proximate  to each other and the last  of the fact  mentioned in proximate  to the order of detention then  the early  incidents can not be treated as stale and detention order cannot be  set aside. In the instant case, it is seen that between the period from  10.1.2001 and 25.10.2002 the detenue was involved in five  incidents of bootlegging which are reasonably proximate to each  other and the last of the incidents being proximate to the order of  detention, we think the High Court was not justified in treating the  two incidents of 17.1.2000 and 10.1.2001 as stale by taking them  in isolation. In our opinion, the court should have considered the  proximity of the incidents between themselves which indicates the  possibility of the proposed detenue continuing to indulge in the  illegal activities which requires his preventive detention. In the  present case, as noticed above, the five incidents recorded in the  order of detention being proximate enough to each other  shows  the continuity of the acts of the detenue. In such a fact situation,  we think the High Court erred in coming to the conclusion that two  of the five grounds being not proximate to the order of detention  and the order of detention was based on stale grounds.  While it  can be stated that the incidents of 17.1.2000 and 10.1.2001 could  not by themselves have been sufficient grounds to detain the  detenue but would certainly become a relevant material along with  other three grounds dated 3.2.2002, 6.10.2002 and 25.10.2002 to  come to the conclusion that there is a need for detaining the  detenue to prevent him from indulging in similar activities in the  future.          While we uphold the validity of the order of detention  passed by the detaining authority by disagreeing with the finding  of the High Court. However,  on facts of this case, we notice that  the detenue was taken into custody on 15.1.2003 and was released  from detention pursuant to the order of the High Court on  28.4.2003 and at this distance of time the appellants  have no fresh  material to show before us that his further detention is necessary.  Therefore, we think there is no need to re-arrest the detenue to  serve out the balance period of detention. Hence, while allowing  this writ petition by setting aside the impugned order, we also hold  that it is not necessary for the detenue to be re-arrested to serve out  the rest of the period of detention. This, however, does not prevent  the authorities from passing such an order as is necessary if the  present fact situation requires  any such action.         Ordered accordingly.