Allowed

Guthula Purushotham v. the State of Ap

Andhra Pradesh HC17 Mar 2023WP/39708/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order quashed a writ petition challenging a preventive detention order passed under the Preventive Detention Act against an accused in Andhra Pradesh Prohibition Act cases. The court held that mere accusation and police suspicion were insufficient to satisfy the mandatory 'triple test' for detention.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition allowed; detenue directed to be released unless wanted in other cases; all pending miscellaneous applications dismissed.

Guthula Purushotham Vs the State… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Andhra Pradesh HC (2023)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.V.S.S.SOMAYAJULU & THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V. SRINIVAS

¶2

Writ Petition No.39708 of 2022

¶3

ORDER: (per Sri Justice D.V.S.S.Somayajulu)

¶4

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Advocate General Sri Syed Khader Masthan.

¶5

The learned counsel for petitioner points out that the order of detention, dt.08.11.2022 is passed against the detenue in five cases mentioned therein are all of the offences under Andhra Pradesh Prohibition Act, 1995 (for short ‘the Act’). Relying upon the Division Bench judgment of this Court in Writ Petition No.5469 of 2022 and other judgments, learned counsel for petitioner argues that merely because a person is the accused of offences under the Act, he cannot be classified as Goonda, unless all the other stringent tests prescribed by the Act of actually made. He points out that there is no danger to public life or to the public order. Lastly, he submits that as on the date of detention order, the detenue was already in custody and points out that the detaining authority did not record necessary reasons while passing the order as laid down by

¶6

the Hon’ble Supreme Court in number of cases, where in a triple test was prescribed. He also relies upon Dharmendra Suganchand Chelawat and another v. Union of India and others¹ and Munagala Yadamma v. State of Andhra Pradesh and others² in support of his contention. In reply to this, learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the respondents states that the effect of public health and public order were considered before the order was passed. He points out despite of registering number of cases, the detenue is continuing her activities and therefore there is likelihood of harm to public health and order. He points out that the page number (3) and (4) of the orders, these aspects were discussed in detail and also points out that in bold print, it is disclosed that the detenue was likely to be released on bail and thereafter indulge in criminal activities. Therefore, learned Government Pleader justifies the detention. He also points out that admittedly as per the chemical examiner’s report, the material seized from the detenue is illicitly distilled liquor, which is unfit for the human consumption. This

¶7

1 (1990) 1 SCC 746

¶8

2 (2012) 2 SCC 386

¶9

Court after examining the facts, notices that admittedly the petitioner was the accused only of the offences under the Prohibition Act. As per the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court mentioned earlier, merely because a person is accused of the offences under the prohibition Act is a bootlegger and the provision of Preventive Detention Act cannot be invoked unless and until all the other conditions of the order etc., being affected are clearly made out. The same is not present in this case other than entirety reproduction of language a clear satisfaction is necessary not recorded.

¶10

In addition, it is admitted fact that the detenue was in custody. Therefore, Triple test stipulated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court should be scrupulously followed. In the case on hand it is only the Superintendent of Police who has felt that there is likelihood of the detenue is being released on bail and committing further crimes. A satisfaction that is necessary to be recorded by the detaining authority is not visible from the reading of this order. It is the dissatisfaction held to be mandatory by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India and this is fatal to the case

¶11

of the respondent. This court is of the opinion that Writ Petition should be allowed.

¶12

This writ petition is accordingly allowed, detenue is directed to be released unless she is wanted in other cases.

¶13

As a sequel, Miscellaneous Applications, if any, pending shall also stand dismissed.

¶14

________________________________ JUSTICE D.V.S.S.SOMAYAJULU

¶15

________________________ JUSTICE V. SRINIVAS

¶16

Date: 17.03.2023 AG/VNB