TMI Blog2011 (9) TMI 992X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... involved in felling, transporting, smuggling of red-sanders trees and committing theft of forest wealth in as many as eight times within a period of one year. The cases registered against him disclose his activities. They are: (i) OR No. 130/2009-10- dated 22.02.2010: On 22.02.2010, on receiving information at 06:00 a.m., Forest Range Officer and Deputy Range Officer Rayachoty, alongwith other staff proceeded to Masineni Kanuma locality of Palakonda Reserved Forest in Saraswathipalli Beat and noticed 3 persons lifting and storing red-sanders wood and preparing to transport the same. On seeing the Forest officials, they ran away from the scene of offence and could not be apprehended. Later, they were identified and one among them was the detenue. Thereafter, the Forest officials seized 30 red-sanders logs weighing 844 kgs. worth ₹ 45,576/-. An offence was registered against them vide P.O.R. No. 6 dated 22.02.2010 under Section 20(1)(c)(ii) of the A.P. Forest Act, 1967 (hereinafter referred to as the A.P. Act ) for trespassing in Reserved Forest, under Section 20(1)(c)(iii) of the A.P. Act for causing damage by willfully cutting trees and dragging the same, under Section ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... de P.O.R. No. 20 dated 23.05.2010 against them under various sections of the A.P. Act and the Rules. (vi) FIR No. 46/10 dated 27.05.2010 and OR No. 20/2010-11 dated 30.05.2010 On 27.05.2010, the Inspector of Police, Rayachoty Rural Circle and Sub-Inspector of Police, Veeraballi P.S. along with their staff noticed one Indica Car followed by a lorry from Ragimannudivanpalli. On seeing them, the occupants tried to run away and the police chased and caught-hold of two persons while one person escaped. The lorry was found loaded with 25 red-sanders logs. On interrogation, they informed that the detenue was escorting them and he ran away from the scene. The police registered a case in FIR No. 46/10 dated 27.05.2010 under Section 379 IPC and Section 29A(1) of the A.P. Act read with Rule 3 of the Rules. The Forest Range Officer, Rayachoty also booked a case vide POR No. 20/2010-11 dated 30.05.2010. (vii) FIR No. 75/10 dated 03.10.2010 and OR No. 60/2010-11 dated 04.10.2010 On 03.10.2010, the Inspector of Police, Rayachoty Rural Circle and Sub-Inspector of Police, Veeraballi P.S. along with forest officials proceeded to Teacher Narayana Reddy Mango Garden located at Peddamadiga ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion is not illegal. Aggrieved by the said order, the appellant has filed this appeal by way of special leave petition before this Court. 4) Heard Mr. A.T.M. Rangaramanujam learned senior counsel for the appellant and Mr. R. Sundaravardan, learned senior counsel for the State. 5) It is the definite stand of the State that its administration is not in a position to curb the illegal activities of the detenue under the normal procedure, who was habitually indulging in illicit trespass, cutting, dressing and transporting the redsanders wood from the Reserved Forest owned by the State causing irreparable loss to national wealth. The Detaining Authority, on going through all the materials and after holding that the said detenue is a goonda under Section 2(g) of the 1986 Act passed the order of detention. 6) Since the said detention was challenged by his brotherin- law before the High Court and the same has been negatived by the High Court, let us refer certain provisions of the 1986 Act. Section 2(g) defines goonda which reads as under:- 2(g) goonda means a person, who either by himself of as a member of or leader of a gang, habitually commits, or attempts to commit or ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... punish him for something he has done but to prevent him from doing it. Even, as early as in 1975, the Constitution Bench of this Court considered the procedures to be followed in view of Articles 19 and 21 of the Constitution. In Haradhan Saha vs. State of West Bengal Ors. (1975) 3 SCC 198, the Constitution Bench of this Court, on going through the order of preventive detention under Maintenance of Internal Security Act, 1971 laid down various principles which are as follows:- ..First; merely because a detenue is liable to be tried in a criminal court for the commission of a criminal offence or to be proceeded against for preventing him from committing offences dealt with in Chapter VIII of the Code of Criminal Procedure would not by itself debar the Government from taking action for his detention under the Act. Second; the fact that the Police arrests a person and later on enlarges him on bail and initiates steps to prosecute him under the Code of Criminal Procedure and even lodges a first information report may be no bar against the District Magistrate issuing an order under the preventive detention. Third; where the concerned person is actually in jail custody at t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e satisfied that the conclusion of Detaining Authority that by invocation of normal procedure, the activities of the detenue cannot be controlled is acceptable. We also hold that Detaining Authority is well within its powers in passing the impugned order of detention. Further, we are also in agreement with the reasoning of the High Court which, by a detailed judgment, upheld the order of detention. 9) Mr. Rangaramanujam submitted that even though the detenue was arrested on 09.10.2010 and was released on bail on 10.11.2010, the detention order was passed on 12.11.2010, the aspect that the detenue was in custody till 10.11.2010 was neither specifically adverted to and considered in the detention order nor the sponsoring authority placed any material regarding the same, hence, the ultimate detention order passed on 12.11.2010 cannot be sustained. Before considering his objection, it is useful to refer the following decision and principles laid down therein. 10) The incident relating to procedure to be adopted in case the detenue is already in custody has been dealt in several cases. In Union of India vs. Paul Manickam and Another (2003) 8 SCC 342, this Court, has held as und ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... levant fact, namely, that he was under custody from 09.10.2010 and he would be released or likely to be released or as in this case released on 10.11.2010 and if an order is passed after due satisfaction in that regard, undoubtedly, the order would be valid. Before answering this point, Mr. R. Sundaravardan, learned senior counsel for the State has brought to our notice that the said objection was neither raised before the Advisory Board nor in the representation to the Government and was not mentioned in the grounds of challenge and argued before the High Court. He also pointed out that even before this Court, this ground was not raised in the special leave petition. It is not in dispute that such objection was not raised anywhere except during the course of argument. No doubt, learned senior counsel for the appellant by drawing our attention to Crl.M.P. No. 11504 of 2011 which was filed for permission to file additional documents submitted that the same may be considered and in the absence of such satisfaction by the Detaining Authority as reflected in the detention order, the same is liable to be quashed. Nonconsideration of bail order would amount to non-application of mind. [ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... factum of release from the jail in 4 criminal cases, passed an order of detention with a view to prevent him from further indulging into such offences. In a matter of detention, the law is clear that as far as subjective satisfaction is concerned, it should either be reflected in the detention order or in the affidavit justifying the detention order. Once the Detaining Authority is subjectively satisfied about the various offences labelled against the detenue, habituality in continuing the same, difficult to control him under the normal circumstances, he is free to pass appropriate order under Section 3 of the 1986 Act by fulfilling the conditions stated therein. We have already concluded that there is no infirmity either in the reasonings of the Detaining Authority or procedure followed by it. We are also satisfied that the detenue was afforded adequate opportunity at every stage and there is no violation of any of the safeguards. In these circumstances, we reject the contention raised by learned senior counsel for the appellant. 14) Though an attempt was made to nullify the order of detention by drawing our attention to the latest decision of this Court reported in Rekha vs. S ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
