MUNAGALA YADAMMAversusSTATE OF A.P. & ORS.

                         [2012] 1 S.C.R. 26


A                     MUNAGALA YADAMMA
                                   v.
                       STATE OF A.P. & ORS.
                  (Criminal Appeal No.67 of 2012)
                         JANUARY 05, 2012
B
    [ALTAMAS KABIR AND SURINDER SINGH NIJJAR, JJ]

          Andhra Pradesh Prevention of Dangerous Activities of
    Boot Leggers Dacoits, Drug Offenders, Goondas, Immoral
C   Traffic Offenders and Land Grabbers Act, 1986 - ss. 3(1) read
    with s. 2A and B - Detention Order under, against the
    appellant's husband - Also stated therein that several cases
    gomg against detenue for violation of the provisions of s. 7A
    rw s. B(C) of the Andhra Pradesh Prohibition Act, 1995 - Writ
D   petition - High Court upheld the detention order on the ground
    that under the normal laws, it would be difficult to check the
    activities of the detenue - On appeal, held: Ordinary law of the
    land was sufficient to deal with the offences complained of
    against the appellant - Offences alleged to have been
E   committed by the appellant were such as to attract
    punishment under the Andhra Pradesh Prohibition Act, but
    that 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
F   trial in order tO prevent him/her from committing certain types
    of offences - But such detention cannot be made a substitute
    for the ordinary law and absolve the investigating authorities
    of their normal functions of investigating crimes which the
    detenue may have committed - Thus. order passed by the
G   High Court set aside and the detention order quashed -
    Andhra Pradesh Prohibition Act, 1995.

       Rekha Vs. State of Tamil Nadu through Secretary to
    Government and Anr. 2011 (5) SCC 244; Yumman Ongbi

H                                 26
  MUNAGALA YADAMMA v. STATE OF A.P. & ORS.                    27


Lembi Leima Vs. State of Manipur & Ors. Criminal Appeal             A
No.26 of 2012- relied on.

    G.Reddelah Vs. The Govt.of Andhra Pradesh and Anr.
2011 (10) SCALE 224 - referred to.
                      Case Law Reference:                           B

     2011 (10) SCALE 224 Referred to.               Para 9
     2011 (5) sec 244          Relied on.           Para 10, 11

    CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal C
No. 67 of 2012.

    From the Judgment & Order dated 20.7.2011 of the High
Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in Writ Petition (Crl.)
No.13313 of2011.
                                                                    D
     Anil Kumar Tandale for the Appellant.

    I. Venkatanarayana, G.N. Reddy, C. Kannan, Ravi
Shankar for the Respondent.
                                                                    E
     The following Order of the Court was delivered

                          ORDER

     1. Leave granted.
                                                                    F
     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 G
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
                                                                    H
    28       SUPREME COURT REPORTS               (2012] 1 S.C.R.


A Section 2(b) of the aforesaid Act and that recourse to normal
  legal procedure would involve more time and would not be an
  effective deterrent in preventing the detenue from indulging in
  further prejudicial activities.

B        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
C 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
D of detention was justified.
         6. The order of the High Court has been challenged before
    us in this appeal.

E      7. On behalf of the appellant, it has been urged that the
  ground tak.en 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 (S)SCC 244, where
F a similar question had arisen and in paragraph 23 of the
  judgment, a three-Judge Bench of tt:is 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
G 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.
H
  MUNAGALA YADAMMA v. STATE OF A.P. & ORS.                   29


     8. It has been submitted by Mr. Anil Kumar Tandale, A
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 B
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
                                                                  c
decision of a two-Judge Bench of this Court in the case of
G.Reddelah Vs. The Govt.of Andhra Pradesh and Anr.,
[2011 (1 O)SCALE 224], was brought to our notice, in which
while referring to the three-Judge Bench decision in Rekha's D
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 E
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.
                                                                  F
     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 G
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 by the detaining H
    30       SUPREME COURT REPORTS               [2012) 1 S.C.R.


A authorities to invoke such provisions. In fact, recently, in
  Crim;nal 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
B right guaranteed under the Constitution in Part Ill 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
C 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
D   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.
E   But such detention cannot be made a substitute for the 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
F   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
G   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.
H N.J.                                            Appeal allowed.