Crl.A.67/12 1

REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

 CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.67 OF 2012   [@ SLP(Crl) No(s).8114 of 2011]

 MUNAGALA YADAMMA                                  Appellant(s)

                VERSUS

 STATE OF A.P. & ORS.                              Respondent(s)

O R D E R

Leave granted. 2. The appellant's husband, Shri Munagala Anjaiah, son of  

Gandaian, resident of Ranga Reddy District in Andhra Pradesh,  

was served with a Detention Order dated 15th February, 2011,  

under Section 3(1) read with Section 2A and B of the Andhra  

Pradesh  Prevention  of  Dangerous  Activities  of  Boot  Leggers  

Dacoits,  Drug  Offenders,  Goondas,  Immoral  Traffic  Offenders  

and Land Grabbers Act, 1986.

3. In  the  Detention  Order,  the  Detaining  Authority  

indicated that the detenue was a bootlegger within the meaning  

of Section 2(b) of the aforesaid Act and that recourse to

Crl.A.67/12 2

normal legal procedure would involve more time and would not  

be  an  effective  deterrent  in  preventing  the  detenue  from  

indulging in further prejudicial activities.

4. It has been mentioned that the detenue was involved in  

several cases of violation of the provisions of Section 7A  

read with Section 8(C) of the Andhra Pradesh Prohibition Act,  

1995, involving illicit distillation of liquor.

5. The  Detention  Order  passed  by  the  Collector  and  

District Magistrate, Ranga Reddy District, was questioned by  

the wife of the detenue by way of   WP No.13313 of 2011 before  

the Andhra Pradesh High Court, which dismissed the same on the  

ground that under the normal laws, it would be difficult to  

check  the  activities  of  the  detenue  and,  accordingly,  the  

order of detention was justified.    

6. The order of the High Court has been challenged before  

us in this appeal.

7. On behalf of the appellant, it has been urged that the  

ground taken for issuance of the Detention Order was improper  

and not available in view of the  reasoned judgment of this  

Court in the case of  Rekha Vs.  State of Tamil Nadu through  

Secretary  to  Government  and  Anr.,  2011(5)SCC  244,  where  a  

similar  question  had  arisen  and  in  paragraph  23  of  the

Crl.A.67/12 3

judgment, a three-Judge Bench of this Court was of the view  

that criminal cases were already going on against the detenue  

under various provisions of the Penal Code, 1860, as well as  

under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940, and that if he was  

found  guilty,  he  would  be  convicted  and  given  appropriate  

sentence.    Their  Lordships  also  indicated  that  in  their  

opinion, the ordinary law of the land was sufficient to deal  

with  the  situation,  and  hence,  recourse  to  the  preventive  

detention law was illegal.

8. It   has  been  submitted  by  Mr.  Anil  Kumar  Tandale,  

learned  advocate  appearing  for  the  appellant,  that  in  the  

instant  case  also  all  the  offences  alleged  to  have  been  

committed  by  the  husband  of  the  appellant,  were  under  the  

provisions of the A.P. Prohibition Act, 1995, for which the  

normal law was sufficient to deal with the offence, if proved.  

He  submitted  that  the  Detaining  Authority  had  wrongfully  

taken  the  easy  way  out  and  had  resorted  to  an  order  of  

preventive detention in order to avoid having to investigate  

the cases filed against the appellant.

9. On  behalf  of  the  State  of  Andhra  Pradesh,  another  

decision of a two-Judge Bench of this Court in the case of  

G.Reddelah Vs.  The  Govt.of  Andhra  Pradesh  and  Anr.,

Crl.A.67/12 4

[2011(10)SCALE 224], was brought to our notice, in which while  

referring to the three-Judge Bench decision in  Rekha's case  

(supra) their Lordships were of the opinion that in view of  

the  factual  position  and  the  enormous  activities  of  the  

detenue, violating various provisions of the Indian Penal Code  

and the Andhra Pradesh Prohibition Act and Rules, continuous  

and habitual pursuing of the same type of offences damaging  

the wealth of the nation, the decision in Rekha's case (supra)  

was  not  applicable  to  the  facts  of  the  said  case.  

Accordingly, the order passed by the Detaining Authority, as  

approved by the Division Bench and upheld by the High Court,  

did not require any interference.

10. Having considered the submissions made on behalf of the  

respective parties, we are unable to accept the submissions  

made on behalf of the State in view of the fact that the  

decision in Rekha's case (supra), in our view, clearly covers  

the facts of this case as well.   The offences complained of  

against the appellant are of a nature which can be dealt with  

under the ordinary law of the land.   Taking recourse to the  

provisions  of  preventive  detention  is  contrary  to  the  

constitutional guarantees enshrined in Articles 19 and 21 of  

the Constitution  and sufficient grounds have to be made out

Crl.A.67/12 5

by the detaining authorities to invoke such provisions.   In  

fact, recently, in Criminal Appeal No.26 of 2012, Yumman Ongbi  

Lembi Leima Vs.  State of Manipur & Ors., we had occasion to  

consider the same issue and the three-Judge Bench  had held  

that  the  personal  liberty  of  an  individual  is  the  most  

precious and prized right guaranteed under the Constitution in  

Part III thereof.   The State has been granted the power to  

curb such rights under criminal laws, as also under the laws  

of preventive detention, which, therefore, are required to be  

exercised  with  due  caution  as  well  as  upon  a  proper  

appreciation of the facts as to whether such acts are in any  

way prejudicial to the interest and the security of the State  

and its citizens, or seek to disturb public law and order,  

warranting the issuance of such an order.    

11. No doubt, the offences alleged to have been committed  

by the appellant are such as to attract punishment under the  

Andhra Pradesh Prohibition Act, but that in our view has to be  

done under the said  laws and taking recourse to preventive  

detention laws would not be warranted.  Preventive detention  

involves  detaining  of  a  person  without  trial  in  order  to  

prevent  him/her  from  committing  certain  types  of  offences.  

But  such  detention  cannot  be  made  a  substitute   for  the

Crl.A.67/12 6

ordinary  law  and  absolve  the  investigating  authorities  of  

their  normal  functions  of  investigating  crimes  which  the  

detenue may have committed.   After all, preventive detention  

in most cases is for a year only and cannot be used as an  

instrument  to  keep  a  person  in  perpetual  custody  without  

trial.  Accordingly,  while  following  the  three-Judge  Bench  

decision in Rekha's case (supra), we allow the appeal and set  

aside the order passed by the High Court dated 20th July, 2011,  

and also quash the Detention Order dated 15th February, 2011,  

issue by the  Collector and District Magistrate, Ranga Reddy  

District, Andhra Pradesh.

12. This order should not in any way prejudice the outcome  

of the pending cases against the appellant.

               ........................J.  (ALTAMAS KABIR)   

.........................J.               (SURINDER SINGH NIJJAR)

  NEW DELHI;    January 05, 2012.