9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (1) TMI 4X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sed the Detention Order ostensibly to maintain public order without once more appreciating the difference between maintenance of law and order and maintenance of public order . The order of detention is, thus, indefensible. Whether there was proper application of mind to all relevant circumstances or whether consideration of extraneous factors has vitiated the Detention Order? - HELD THAT:- Whenever an accused is tried for an offence under a penal law which carries a maximum sentence, the Court is obliged while imposing sentence to apply its mind to the specific facts and circumstances of the case and to either impose maximum sentence or a lesser sentence. It has, therefore, a discretion regarding imposition of sentence - The very term maximum period in section 13 vests the Government with discretion, allowing it to be exercised while considering whether the detention is to be continued for the maximum period of 12 (twelve) months or any lesser period. In our opinion, the relevant provisions of the Act have to be so read as to inhere a safeguard against arbitrary exercise of discretionary power. The period of detention ought to necessarily vary depending upon the facts and circumst ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... after). Perusal of the Detention Order reveals that the Detenu earlier suffered an order of detention dated 4th March, 2021 under the category of White Collar Offender ; however, pursuant to an order of the High Court dated 16th August, 2021 in writ proceedings instituted by his father W.P. No.12321 of 2021 , the Detenu was released from detention on 17th August, 2021; that even after such release, the Detenu did not mend his habitual nature of committing crimes and in the recent past (during 2022 and 2023), in quick succession, had committed 9 (nine) more offences within the limits of Hyderabad Police Commissionerate, as listed therein; that out of such 9 (nine) offences, 5 (five) FIRs 3 (i) FIR No. 227/2022 dated 28.07.2022 for offences under Sections 186, 189, 353, 504, 506, IPC; (ii) FIR No. 262/2022 dated 10.10.2022 for offences under Sections 420, 384, 506 r/w 34, IPC; (iii) FIR No. 338/2022 dated 12.10.2022 for offences under Sections 354, 420, 323, 506 r/w 34, IPC; (iv) FIR No. 18/2023 dated 21.01.2023 for offences under Sections 506, 420, 406 r/w 34, IPC; and (v) FIR No. 35/2023 dated 08.02.2023 for offences under Sections 392, 195A, IPC. had been taken into consideration; ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nu , whereupon the Government issued an order dated 20th May, 2023 under sub-section (1) of section 12 read with section 13 of the Act confirming the Detention Order and directing that the detention be continued for a period of 12 months from the date of detention, i.e., 27th January, 2023 (sic, 27th March, 2023). By a further order of even date, the appellant was informed by the Government of absence of any valid grounds/reasons to set aside/revoke the Detention Order leading to rejection of her representation. 5. The appellant then invoked the writ jurisdiction of the High Court whereupon the parties were heard and the impugned judgment delivered containing reasons for dismissing the writ petition. CONTENTIONS OF THE PARTIES 6. In course of hearing of the appeal, Mr. Luthra, learned senior counsel for the appellant invited our attention to several paragraphs of the impugned judgment to demonstrate the errors from which the same suffered, both factual as well as legal. He also placed on record written notes containing submissions on factual as well as legal aspects. Relying on the authorities referred to therein, he prayed for interference by this Court to facilitate release of th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y and safety of a State, and the welfare of the Nation. Preventive detention, though a draconian and dreaded measure, is permitted by the Constitution itself but subject to the safeguards that are part of the relevant article and those carved out by the Constitutional Courts through judicial decisions of high authority which have stood the test of time. 10. It is common knowledge that recourse to preventive detention can be taken by the executive merely on suspicion and as a precaution to prevent activities by the person, sought to be detained, prejudicial to certain specified objects traceable in a validly enacted law. Since an order of preventive detention has the effect of invading one s personal liberty merely on suspicion and is not viewed as punitive, and the facts on which the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority is based for ordering preventive detention is not justiciable, meaning thereby that it is not open to the Constitutional Courts to enquire whether the detaining authority has erroneously or correctly reached a satisfaction on every question of fact and/or has passed an order of detention which is not justified on facts, resulting in narrowing down of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at the dawn of the Constitution, keeping in mind the then social realities, when the true and correct interpretation of the Constitution was yet to take shape and also without the benefit of any precedent on the point, which permits understanding of various points of view of Hon ble Judges and thereby makes it easy for successors to evolve the dynamic facets of the Fundamental Rights enshrined in the Constitution. 13. This Court in Shibban Lal Saksena vs. State of Uttar Pradesh AIR 1954 SC 179 speaking through Hon ble B.K. Mukherjea, J. (as the Chief Justice then was) quashed an order of preventive detention under the Detention Act reasoning that if one of the two grounds for ordering detention was illegal, the order of detention could not survive on the other ground. Law was laid down in the following words: 8. The first contention raised by the learned counsel raises, however, a somewhat important point which requires careful consideration. It has been repeatedly held by this Court that the power to issue a detention order under Section 3 of the Preventive Detention Act depends entirely upon the satisfaction of the appropriate authority specified in that section. The sufficiency ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the detention order liable to be quashed. Similarly, if some of the grounds supplied to the detenu are so vague that they would virtually deprive the detenu of his statutory right of making a representation that again may introduce a serious infirmity in the order of his detention. If, however, the grounds on which the order of detention proceeds are relevant and germane to the matters which fall to be considered under Section 3(1)(a), it would not be open to the detenu to challenge the order of detention by arguing that the satisfaction of the detaining authority is not reasonably based on any of the said grounds. 8. It is, however, necessary to emphasise in this connection that though the satisfaction of the detaining authority contemplated by Section 3(1)(a) is the subjective satisfaction of the said authority, cases may arise where the detenu may challenge the validity of his detention on the ground of mala fides and in support of the said plea urge that along with other facts which show mala fides the Court may also consider his grievance that the grounds served on him cannot possibly or rationally support the conclusion drawn against him by the detaining authority. It is only ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... may be added the following words uttered by the learned Chief Justice in that case with reference to the observations of Lord Finlay in Rex v. Halliday [1917 AC 260] namely, that the court was the least appropriate tribunal to investigate into circumstances of suspicion on which such anticipatory action must be largely based . This being the nature of the proceeding, it is impossible to conceive how it can possibly be regarded as capable of objective assessment. The matters which have to be considered by the detaining authority are whether the person concerned, having regard to his past conduct judged in the light of the surrounding circumstances and other relevant material, would be likely to act in a prejudicial manner as contemplated in any of sub-clauses (i), (ii) and (iii) of clause (1) of sub-section (1) of Section 3, and if so, whether it is necessary to detain him with a view to preventing him from so acting. These are not matters susceptible of objective determination and they could not be intended to be judged by objective standards. They are essentially matters which have to be administratively determined for the purpose of taking administrative action. Their determinat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... power is exercised dishonestly or for an improper purpose : such a case would also negative the existence of satisfaction on the part of the authority. The existence of improper purpose , that is, a purpose not contemplated by the statute, has been recognised as an independent ground of control in several decided cases. The satisfaction, moreover, must be a satisfaction of the authority itself, and therefore, if, in exercising the power, the authority has acted under the dictation of another body as the Commissioner of Police did in Commissioner of Police v. Gordhandas Bhanji [1951 SCC 1088 : AIR 1952 SC 16 : 1952 SCR 135] and the officer of the Ministry of Labour and National Service did in Simms Motor Units Ltd. v. Minister of Labour and National Service [(1946) 2 All ER 201] the exercise of the power would be bad and so also would the exercise of the power be vitiated where the authority has disabled itself from applying its mind to the facts of each individual case by self-created rules of policy or in any other manner. The satisfaction said to have been arrived at by the authority would also be bad where it is based on the application of a wrong test or the misconstruction of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... prived of his life or personal liberty except in accordance with procedure established by law. This constitutional right of life and personal liberty is placed on such a high pedestal by this Court that it has always insisted that whenever there is any deprivation of life or personal liberty, the authority responsible for such deprivation must satisfy the court that it has acted in accordance with the law. This is an area where the court has been most strict and scrupulous in ensuring observance with the requirements of the law, and even where a requirement of the law is breached in the slightest measure, the court has not hesitated to strike down the order of detention or to direct the release of the detenu even though the detention may have been valid till the breach occurred. The court has always regarded personal liberty as the most precious possession of mankind and refused to tolerate illegal detention, regardless of the social cost involved in the release of a possible renegade. (underlining ours, for emphasis) 17. In a different context, we may take note of the decision in Sama Aruna vs. State of Telangana (2018) 12 SCC 150 where, S.A. Bobde, J. (as the Chief Justice then w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at the person to be detained is likely to indulge in illegal activities in the future and act in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. The satisfaction to be arrived at by the detaining authority must not be based on irrelevant or invalid grounds. It must be arrived at on the basis of relevant material; material which is not stale and has a live link with the satisfaction of the detaining authority. The order of detention may refer to the previous criminal antecedents only if they have a direct nexus or link with the immediate need to detain an individual. If the previous criminal activities of the Appellant could indicate his tendency or inclination to act in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order, then it may have a bearing on the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority. However, in the absence of a clear indication of a causal connection, a mere reference to the pending criminal cases cannot account for the requirements of Section 3. It is not open to the detaining authority to simply refer to stale incidents and hold them as the basis of an order of detention. Such stale material will have no bearing on the probability of the deten ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... red little in excess of a decade back by a Bench of 3-Judges. 22. In Rekha vs. State of Tamil Nadu ( 2011 ) 5 SCC 244 , this Court observed that: 21. It is all very well to say that preventive detention is preventive not punitive. The truth of the matter, though, is that in substance a detention order of one year (or any other period) is a punishment of one year s imprisonment. What difference is it to the detenu whether his imprisonment is called preventive or punitive? ( italics in original ) *** 29. Preventive detention is, by nature, repugnant to democratic ideas and an anathema to the Rule of law. No such law exists in the USA and in England (except during war time). Since, however, Article 22(3)(b) of the Constitution of India permits preventive detention, we cannot hold it illegal but we must confine the power of preventive detention within very narrow limits, otherwise we will be taking away the great right to liberty guaranteed by Article 21 of the Constitution of India which was won after long, arduous and historic struggles. It follows, therefore, that if the ordinary law of the land (the Penal Code and other penal statutes) can deal with a situation, recourse to a preve ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... learned Judges in Rekha (supra) sound a note discordant with the law laid down in Haradhan Saha (supra) ought not to be construed as acceptance by us as the correct exposition of law. 25. Be that as it may, culling out the principles of law flowing from all the relevant decisions in the field, our understanding of the law for deciding the legality of an order of preventive detention is that even without appropriate pleadings to assail such an order, if circumstances appear therefrom raising a doubt of the detaining authority misconceiving his own powers, the Court ought not to shut its eyes; even not venturing to make any attempt to investigate the sufficiency of the materials, an enquiry can be made by the Court into the authority s notions of his power. Without being remotely concerned about the sufficiency or otherwise of the materials on which detention has been ordered, the Court would be justified to draw a conclusion, on proof from the order itself, that the detaining authority failed to realize the extent of his own powers. This is quite apart from questioning the action for want of sufficient materials that were before the detaining authority. The authority for the detent ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the inquiry in respect whereof the satisfaction is to be reached; (ix) the grounds on which the order of preventive detention rests are not vague but are precise, pertinent and relevant which, with sufficient clarity, inform the detenu the satisfaction for the detention, giving him the opportunity to make a suitable representation; and (x) the timelines, as provided under the law, have been strictly adhered to. Should the Court find the exercise of power to be bad and/or to be vitiated applying any of the tests noted above, rendering the detention order vulnerable, detention which undoubtedly visits the person detained with drastic consequences would call for being interdicted for righting the wrong. ANALYSIS AND DECISION 26. Since in the present case power under section 3 of the Act was exercised, it is reproduced hereunder for facility of reference : 3. (1) The Government may, if satisfied with respect to any bootlegger, dacoit, drug-offender, goonda, immoral traffic offender, Land-Grabber, Spurious Seed Offender, Insecticide Offender, Fertilizer Offender, Food Adulteration Offender, Fake Document Offender, Scheduled Commodities Offender, Forest Offender, Gaming Offender, Sexual ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2022, 18/2023 and 35/2023, charge-sheets are yet to be filed and the Detenu has been released on bail whereas in regard to Crime Nos. 338/2022 and 227/2022, charge-sheets have been filed without even arresting him. 29. The issues with the Detention Order which we need to address are these: first, whether the alleged acts of commission for which the Detenu has been kept under detention are prejudicial to public order and secondly, whether all relevant circumstances were considered or whether extraneous factors weighed in the mind of the detaining authority leading to the conclusion that the Detenu is a habitual offender and for prevention of further crimes by him, he ought to be detained. Incidentally, the issue of whether application of mind is manifest in first ordering detention and then confirming it by continuing such order for a period of 12 (twelve) months upon rejection of the representation filed on behalf of the Detenu by the appellant could also be answered. Needless to observe, we need not examine the second and the incidental issues if the appeal succeeds on the first issue. 30. Addressing the first issue first, it has to be understood as a fundamental imperative as to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ot every case of a general disturbance to public tranquillity affects the public order and the question to be asked, as articulated by Hon ble M. Hidayatullah, CJ. in Arun Ghosh vs. State of West Bengal (1970) 1 SCC 98 , is this: Does it [read: the offending act] lead to disturbance of the current of life of the community so as to amount a disturbance of the public order or does it affect merely an individual leaving the tranquillity of the society undisturbed? In that case, the petitioning detenu was detained by an order of a district magistrate since he had been indulging in teasing, harassing and molesting young girls and assaults on individuals of a locality. While holding that the conduct of the petitioning detenu could be reprehensible, it was further held that it (read: the offending act) does not add up to the situation where it may be said that the community at large was being disturbed or in other words there was a breach of public order or likelihood of a breach of public order . In the process of quashing the impugned order, the Chief Justice while referring to the decision in Ram Manohar Lohia (supra) also ruled: 3. *** Public order was said to embrace more of the comm ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he general public or any section thereof or a grave wide-spread danger to life or public health . 36. Ram Manohar Lohia (supra) is an authority to rely upon for the proposition that if liberty of an individual can be invaded under statutory rules by the simple process of making of a certain order, he can be so deprived only if the order is in consonance with the said rule. Strict compliance with the letter of the rule, in such a case, has to be the essence of the matter since the statute has the potentiality to interfere with the personal liberty of an individual and a Court is precluded from going behind its face. Though circumstances may make it necessary for ordering a detention without trial, but it would be perfectly legitimate to require strict observance of the rules in such cases. If there is any doubt whether the rules have been strictly observed, that doubt must be resolved in favour of the detenu. 37. Rekha too (supra) provides a useful guide. It is said in paragraph 30 that: 30. Whenever an order under a preventive detention law is challenged one of the questions the court must ask in deciding its legality is: was the ordinary law of the land sufficient to deal with the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . The offence in respect of the minor girl did exercise our consideration for some time but we have noted that the Detenu was not arrested because of an order passed by the High Court on an application under section 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code ( Cr. PC , hereafter). The investigating agency not having elected to have such order quashed by a higher forum, the facts have their own tale to tell. Even otherwise, the gravity of the offences alleged in Arun Ghosh (supra) was higher in degree, yet, the same were not considered as affecting public order . The only other offence that could attract the enumerated category of acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order and an order of preventive detention, if at all, is the stray incident where the Detenu has been charged under section 353, IPC and where the police has not even contemplated an arrest under section 41 of the Cr. PC. 40. On an overall consideration of the circumstances, it does appear to us that the existing legal framework for maintaining law and order is sufficient to address like offences under consideration, which the Commissioner anticipates could be repeated by the Detenu if not detained. We ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the detenu, this Court had, in express terms, clarified that a generalisation could not be made that the detenu was in the habit of committing those offences. Merely because the detenu was charged for multiple offences, it could not be said that he was in the habit of committing such offences. Further, habituality of committing offences cannot, in isolation, be taken as a basis of any detention order; rather it has to be tested on the metrics of public order , as discussed above. Therefore, cases where such habituality has created any public disorder could qualify as a ground to order detention. 46. Although the Commissioner sought to project that he ordered detention based on the said 5 (five) FIRs, indication of the past offences allegedly committed by the Detenu in the Detention Order having influenced his thought process is clear. With the quashing of the order of detention dated 4th March, 2021 by the High Court and such direction having attained finality, it defies logic why the Commissioner embarked on an elaborate narration of past offences, which are not relevant to the grounds of the present order of detention. This is exactly what this Court in Khaja Bilal Ahmed (sup ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ous considerations having found their way into the Detention Order. 49. The other aspect requiring some guidance for detaining authorities and on which we wish to comment is that there is no requirement in law of orders of detention being expressed in language that would normally be considered elegant or artistic. An order of detention, which is capable of comprehension, has to precisely set forth the grounds of detention without any vagueness. The substance of the order and how it is understood by the detenu determines its nature. An order in plain and simple language providing clarity of how the subjective satisfaction was formed is what a detenu would look for, since the detenu has a right to represent against the order of detention and claim that such order should not have been made at all. If the detenu fails to comprehend the grounds of detention, the very purpose of affording him the opportunity to make a representation could be defeated. At the same time, the detaining authority ought to ensure that the order does not manifest consideration of extraneous factors. The detaining authority must be cautious and circumspect that no extra or additional word or sentence finds plac ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , which would be detrimental to public order, unless he is preventively detained from doing so by an appropriate order of detention. 51. We are of the opinion that the aforesaid excerpts from the Detention Order lay bare the Commissioner s attempt to transgress his jurisdiction and to pass an order of detention, which cannot be construed as an order validly made under the Act. The quoted observations are reflective of the intention to detain the Detenu at any cost without resorting to due procedure. It is neither the case of the respondents that the Detenu had not complied with the terms of the notice issued under section 41-A of the Cr. PC, nor has it been alleged that the conditions of bail had been violated by the Detenu. It is pertinent to note that in the three criminal proceedings where the Detenu had been released on bail, no applications for cancellation of bail had been moved by the State. In the light of the same, the provisions of the Act, which is an extraordinary statute, should not have been resorted to when ordinary criminal law provided sufficient means to address the apprehensions leading to the impugned Detention Order. There may have existed sufficient grounds to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... blic spoken of in Section 2(a) of the Telangana Prevention of Dangerous Activities Act is make believe and totally absent in the facts of the present case. ( underlining ours, for emphasis ) 54. On the ground of consideration of extraneous materials too, the Detention Order is unsustainable. 55. A pernicious trend prevalent in the state of Telangana has not escaped our attention. While the Nation celebrates Azadi Ka Amrit Mahotsav to commemorate 75 years of independence from foreign rule, some police officers of the said state who are enjoined with the duty to prevent crimes and are equally responsible for protecting the rights of citizens as well, seem to be oblivious of the Fundamental Rights guaranteed by the Constitution and are curbing the liberty and freedom of the people. The sooner this trend is put to an end, the better. Even this Court, in Mallada K Sri Ram vs. State of Telangana 2022 SCC OnLine SC 424 , while deciding an appeal arising from the state of Telangana, had the occasion to observe: 17. It is also relevant to note, that in the last five years, this Court has quashed over five detention orders under the Telangana Act of 1986 for inter alia incorrectly applying t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he detention should continue for the maximum permissible period. In the light of sub-section (2) of section 11 read with sub-section (1) of section 12 of the Act, the period for which the detention should continue is left to be specified by the Government with the stipulation in section 13 thereof that the maximum period shall be 12 (twelve) months from the date of detention. This appears on a plain reading of the relevant statutory provisions. That apart, Mr. Luthra is right in placing reliance on the concurring judgment authored by Hon ble B.K. Mukherjea, J. in Dattatraya Moreshwar Pangarkar vs. State of Bombay AIR 1952 SC 181 that the duration for which a detenu is to be kept in detention is for the detaining authority to decide and not the Advisory Board. The said opinion finds approval in the decision of the Constitution Bench of this Court in A.K. Roy vs. Union of India ( 1982 ) 1 SCC 271 . The period of detention and the terminal point has, therefore, to be decided by the Government. Having observed the uncanny consistency of authorities continuing detention orders under the preventive detention laws for the maximum permissible span of 12 (twelve) months from the date of det ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion is discriminatory or arbitrary. 62. In A.K. Roy (supra), the Court echoed the above view by holding that: 77. Dr Ghatate's objection against Section 13 is that it provides for a uniform period of detention of 12 months in all cases, regardless of the nature and seriousness of the grounds on the basis of which the order of detention is passed. There is no substance in this grievance because, any law of preventive detention has to provide for the maximum period of detention, just as any punitive law like the Penal Code has to provide for the maximum sentence which can be imposed for any offence. We should have thought that it would have been wrong to fix a minimum period of detention, regardless of the nature and seriousness of the grounds of detention. The fact that a person can be detained for the maximum period of 12 months does not place upon the detaining authority the obligation to direct that he shall be detained for the maximum period. The detaining authority can always exercise its discretion regarding the length of the period of detention. ( underlining ours, for emphasis ) 63. Whenever an accused is tried for an offence under a penal law which carries a maximum sen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iscretion is available with authorities to decide the period of detention, as articulated by Lord Halsbury in Susannah Sharp vs. Wakefield Ors. [ 1891 ] A.C. 173, 179 , this discretion should be exercised in accordance with the rules of reason and justice, not according to private opinion; according to law, and not humour; it is to be, not arbitrary, vague, and fanciful, but legal and regular . 67. We turn to A.K. Roy (supra) once again where the law is expounded in the following words: 70. *** We have the authority of the decisions in for saying that the fundamental rights conferred by the different articles of Part III of the Constitution are not mutually exclusive and that therefore, a law of preventive detention which falls within Article 22 must also meet the requirements of Articles 14, 19 and 21. *** 68. Having held thus, we are not unmindful of the decision in Vijay Kumar vs. Union of India ( 1988 ) 2 SCC 57 where this Court rejected the contention that the Government had not applied its mind while confirming the detention of the appellant for the maximum period of 1 (one) year from the date of detention as prescribed in section 10 of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ar some reflection in the order of detention; or else, the Government could be accused of unreasonableness and unfairness. Detention being a restriction on the invaluable right to personal liberty of an individual and if the same were to be continued for the maximum period, it would be eminently just and desirable that such restriction on personal liberty, in the least, reflects an approach that meets the test of Article 14. We, however, refrain from pronouncing here that an order of detention, otherwise held legal and valid, could be invalidated only on the ground of absence of any indication therein as to why the detention has been continued for the maximum period. That situation does not arise here and is left for a decision in an appropriate case. 71. Both Mr. Luthra and Mr. Dave have referred us the recent decision of a 3-Judges Bench of this Court in the case of Pesala Nookaraju vs. The Government of Andhra Pradesh Crl. Appeal No. 2304 of 2023 , decided on 16th August , 2023 , where an order of detention passed in exercise of power conferred by the Andhra Pradesh Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Boot-leggers, Dacoits, Drug Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r because the same can be effectively dealt with under the provisions of the Prohibition Act but if the liquor sold by the detenu is dangerous to public health then under the Act of 1986, it becomes an activity prejudicial to the maintenance of public order, therefore, it becomes necessary for the detaining authority to be satisfied on the material available to it that the liquor dealt with by the detenu is liquor which is dangerous to public health to attract the provisions of the 1986 Act and if the detaining authority is satisfied that such material exists either in the form of report of the Chemical Examiner or otherwise, copy of such material should also be given to the detenu to afford him an opportunity to make an effective representation. *** 71. In the case on hand, the detaining authority has specifically stated in the grounds of detention that selling liquor by the appellant detenu and the consumption by the people of that locality was harmful to their health. Such statement is an expression of his subjective satisfaction that the activities of the detenu appellant is prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. Not only that, the detaining authority has also recorded ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
