Habeas corpus challenge to a preventive detention order passed against a detenu classified as a drug offender under the Telangana PD Act on the basis of two ganja-peddling crimes, and to the Government's confirmation order. The Court held the detention valid, found no staleness or non-application of mind, and dismissed the writ petition.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
')-. i
HIGH COURT FOR 7HE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERAEAD (Speciat Originat Jurisdiction)
N/ONDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY ONE
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A. RAJASHEKER REDDY AND THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE SHAMEEM AKTHER
WRIT PETITION NO:40 0 F 2021
Between:
Jadav Nehru, S/o Jadav Bansilal, aged 21 years, Ryo.H,No.1-9.1 , Chllaoellv Thanda Yelgol Post, Jharasangam Mandal, S angareddy District, Telangana State.' ' ...PETITIONER
AND
...RESPONDENTS
Petition under Articre 226 of the constitution of rndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High court may be pleased to issue a writ of Habeas corpus under An.226 ol the constitution of India directing the respondents to produce sri. Jadav Bansilal @ Rathod Bansilal s/o.Garma Naik, now detained at central prison, cherlapally, lvledchal District, before this Hon,ble court and he may be ordered to be rereased forthwith/set at riberty after decraring his detention videproc.No.c1l1613l2ozo, daled 24t11/2020 passed by the 2nd respondent and consequential confirmation orders passed by the 1st respondent vide G.o,Rt.No.361 Generar Administration (spr. (raw & order) Department, dated 't 3.02.2021 as illegal, unconstitutional and void.
(Prayer has been amended as per court order, dated 12.03.2021 vide l.A.No.2 of 2021 in W.p.No.40 of 221.)
NO: 1 2021
Petition under section 1si cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may be pleased to receive copy of G'o.Rt'No.36'1 Generar Administration (spr. (raw and order) Department, dared 1310212021 passed by the 1st respondent as additionar materiar paper in the above writ petition.
IANO: 3OF2 021
Petition under section '1 51 cpc praying that in the circumsrances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may be preased to issue a writ of Habeas corpus under Art.226 of the constitution of rndia directing the respondents to produce sri.JadavBansilal @ Rathod Bansilal S/o.Garma Naik, now detained at centrar prison, cherrapaIy, Medchar District, bafore this Hon'bre court and he may be ordered to be rereased forthwith/set at riberty after decraring his
I
r
,f i/_//
detention videproc.No.cir16fir2a2o, dated 24-11-2020 passed by the 2nd respondent and consequential confirmation orders passed by the 1st respondent vide G.o.Rt.No,36r Generar Administration(Spr.(Law&order) Department, dated 13-02-2021 as illegal, u nconstitutiona I and void. lnstead of "For the reasons stated in the affidavit filed n support of the writ petition the petitioner herein prays that this Hon'bre court may be preased to issue a v,/rit of Habeas corpus under Art.226 of the constitution of rndia directing the r.espondents to produce sri.JadavBansilal @ Rathod Bansirar s/o.Garma Naik, now detained at centrar prison, cherrapaily, lvedchar District, before this Hon'bre court ind he may be ordered to be released forthwith/set at liberty afler declaring his detention vide proc.tJo.C 11161312020, dated 24'11-2020passed by the 2nd respondent and consequential confirmation orders passed by the 1st respondent as i egqr, unconstitutiona r and void.', counser for thepetitioner: sRr c.v. MOHAN, REDDY, sENroR cotjNsEL FoR SM'T. B. MOHANA REDDY
ff I ,1. i''
t t'
Counsel for the Respondents: SRI T. SRIIGNTH REDDY, Gp FOR HOME THE ADDITIONAL AOVOCATE GENERAL
The Court made the following: ORDER
_----aa*aa&r.r.{rxtn
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.RAJASHEKER REDDY AND THE HoN,BLE DT. JUsTIcE SHAMEEM AKTHER
P T I
ORDER: (per the Hon,bte Dr . Justice Shameem Akther)
Mr. Jadav Nehru, the petitioner, has; filed this Habeas Corpus petition on behalf of his father, Jadav Ba @ Rathod Bansitar, s/o.Garma Naik, ased about 44 ,_;;, ;:""t1 l detenu, challenging the detention order, vide No.C1l1613/2020, dated 24.L7.2O2O,passed by the respondent No.2_Collector and District Magistrate, Sanga F.eddy District, wherein, the detenu was detained under Section 3(2) of the Teiangana prevention of Dangerous Activities of Booueggers. Dacoits, Drug_Offenders, Goondas, Immoraj Traffic Offenders, LandGrabbers, Spurious Seed offenders, insecticide Offenders, Fertilizer Offenders, Foocj Adulteration Offenders, Fake Document offenders, Sclieduied Commodities Offenders, Forest Offenders, Gaming Offenders, Sexual Offenders, Explosive Substances Orr..O";;.r. Offenders, Cyber Crirne Offenders & White Collar or Financial Offenders Act, 1985 (for short,,p.O. Act,,) anC the consequential confirmation order vide G.O.Rt.No.361, dated fi.02.2021, issued by theprincipar secretary to Government, Generar Administration (Spr. (Law & Order)) Department, Governrnent of Telangana.
l".i
ARR,.i & Dr. SA*l \t P No 40 of21)21
2
n', ,,v
ARR. J & DT SAJ J w P No 40 ol202l
it l I
/
stipulated under Article22(5)of the Constitution of India.On this ground also, the impugned order is liable to be set aside'Preventive detention laws can beinvoked only if the activitiesof a personare prejudicial to maintenance of public order. Al'eady criminallaw was set into motion againstthe detenu. Hence,there is no need for the respondents to invoke draconianpreventive detention Iaws against him, The detaining authoritydid not assign any reasonfor coming to a conclusion that the activitiesof the detenuare affectingthe public order, Further, thecasesalleged against the detenu would not add up to "disturbing thepublic order".They are confinedwithin the ambit and scope of theword"law and order"'Since the offences alleged are under theNarcotic Drugsand PsychotropicSubstances Act, l9B5 (for short,'NDPS Act'),the detenu can certainly be tried and convicted underthe said special law. Thus,there was no need for the detaining authority toinvoke:he draconianpreventive detention laws. Hence,the impugneddetention order tantamountsto colourable exercise oFpower.The detaining authorityhas to be extremely careful whilepassing the detention order, slnce the detention ipso factoadversely affectsthe fundamentalright of personal liberty enjoyed by thepeople under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Thus,the detention order islegally unsustainable and ultimately,prayedto set aside the same and allow the writpetition asprayed for'In support of his contentions, the learned Senior Counselappearingfor the petitioner had placed reliance on the following decisions:
i, Shiv Prasad Bhatnagarvs. State of M.P and anotherl
'( 198 l) 2 Su'premeCounCases456
ri--. I I
vi. S. Anu vs. The State of Telangana and otherss
4, On the other hand, Sri T. Srikanth Reddy, learned Government Pleader for Home would contend that the detenu is a,drug offender,. He, along with his associates, has been indulging in peddling of 'Ganja', a narcotic drug, in an organizri:d manner among the innocent people in the limits of Sangareddy District, duly endangering the lives of youth and innocent people, causing irreparable damage to their body organs inciuding Central Nervousi System and thereby, crippling the health oF those who are addicted td drugs. The unlawful activities of the detenu were causing widespread danger to the public health and were detrimental to the pu&lic order. The crimes allegedly committed by the detenu were suFficient to affect the even tempo of the society and create a feeling of insecurity in the minds of the people at large. Further, in Crime ,Na.94/2020, the detenu was caught red-handed while transporting huge quantity cf'Ganja, weighing about 850 Kgs and he confessed that he, along with his associate, procured the said contraband from Andhra Orissa Border area and selling the same in the limits oF Sangareddy District for pecuniary benefit. Hence, it cannot be said that there is no evidence
I2019 Strprenre Court Cases Online SC I6i7 ' AIR 1990 Suprerne Court ll96
' t!015 r l6 Suprenrc Cou r Case; 153 'Dccided on 21.1,.2019 rn W.P No lq590o,' 2019 b1, 1i:langana I-ligh Court. 6 Decided on 23.0 L2O2O in W.P No.26682 ot 2019 b1, 1'clangana High Court.
fl.
I
)
I ,
to link the detenu with the alleged offence. Huge quantity of ,Ganja, weighing about 135g Kgs was seized in the two crimes which are considered as grounds for detention. The ill_effects of consuming 'Ganja' is highry harmfur and injurious to pubric hearth. whire passing the impugned detention order, the detaining authority was conscious of the fact that the detenu is already in judicial custody. There is no legal bar to invoke the preventive detention raws against a person who is in judicial custody. An order of preventive detention may be made in anticipation, with or without prosecution or after discharge or even after acquittal of a person/s in the cases alleged. There is no paraller between the prosecution in the court of raw and detention order underp.D.Act. One is punitive action and the other one is preventive action. The basis for passing the detention order is that the authority passing the detention order has to arrive at subjective satisfaction for preventively detaining the detenu. In the instant case, the subjective satisfaction recorded by the detaining authority cannot be said to be tainted. The impugned detention order is not passed on surmises and conjectures, as contended. All the mandatory provisions and the safeguards envisaged under the law were strictly forrowed whire passing the impugned detention order and hence, the impugned detention order does not suffer from illegality or impropriety. The order of detention toqether with grounds or detention and the materiar referred to and rerred upon in the grounds oF detention were supplied to the detenu jn the languages known to him. Despite registerinq a case in Crime No.74/20L9 for peddling narcotic drug and though the detenu was granted anticipatory bail in the said crime by the court concerned and release.d From prison, he did not mend his attitude and indulged t"
"/
,r,
\ltR..N LlrSAI ! i,\orofi2(2r
6
in similardangerousactivities which are detrimentalto the public health atlarge' In order to preventthe detenuin furtherindulging in similaroffences,the impugneddetention order was passed'Further' the AdvisoryBoard, in its reviewmeeting'upon hearingthe detenu uponconsideringthe and theconcerned investigating officials and opinionthat there IS entire materialplacedbefore it' renderedits sufficientcause for detention of thedetenu.On considering the uponconsiderin Ithe entire of theAdvisorY Boardand opinlon nraterial ,the Government confirmed the impugneddetention order' videG.O Rt.No 361, GeneralAdministration(Spl' (Law & Order)) Department,dated13'02'2021' Therefore' the detaining authority is legallyjustifiedinpassing the impugned detentionorder and ultimately,prayed to dismiss the writ petition'
"Whetherthe impugned detention order' dated 24.77.2O2O,passed bythe respondentNo'2- Cotlectorand District Magistrate'Sangareddy'and theconsequentiatconfirmation order' dated 13.02.2027,passed by the PrincipalSecretarY to GovernmenttGeneral Administration(Spl' (Law& Order))Department, Government of Telanganat are tiable tobe set aside?"
6 POINT:Briefly,the facts of the case are that by relying on two CrimeNos.74 12019 and casesregistered against the detenuvide District,the resPondent g4l2O2O, within thelimits of Sangareddy the imPugned DistrictMaglstrate, Passed No.2-Collectorand the resPondent detentionorder, dated 24'll'2020'Accordingto
1,,
t-
7
No.2, the detenu is a'drug offender,. He, along with his associates, has been indurging in iilegar and highry dangerous activities of peddling 'Ganja,, a narcotic substance, among the innocent people in the limits of Hyderabad Police Com m ission era te, duly endangering the lives of youth and innocent people and acting in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order and public health as werr' The detenu is a potentiar threat to the maintenance of pubric order in generar and pubric hearth in particurar. Though the two bair petitions moved by the detenu in one of the cases relied upon for preventively detaining him (Crime No.g4/2020) were dismissed by the Courts concerned, he was granted anticipatory bail in the other crime relied upon for preventively detaining him (Crime No. 74/2019). Therefore, there is every possibility of the detenu getting bail in crime No'94/2020 arso and indurging in commission of simirar offences after his rerease on bair, which would be detrimentar to the public order. Therefore, in order to prevent the detenu from indulging in similar illegal activities, which are detrimental to the public order ln general and public health at large, the impugned detention order, dated 24.|L.2020, was passed, which was confirmed by the Government by order, dated 13.O2.2OZl.
ARR.J&Dr.SAJ W P \o a0 of 2O2l
8
innocent people causing irreparable damage to the health of the people at large. His illegal activities have caused widespread danger to the public health. The detaining authority relied on two cases for preventively detaining the detenu. We present them in a tabular column, the date of occurrence, the date of registration of FIR, the offences complained of and its nature, such as bailable/non-bailable or cog n iza ble/no n-cog n iza ble.
| CrimeNo | Dateof Occurrence |
Oateof reqistration ofFIR |
Offences | Nature |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 74/2A19of Prohibitionand Excise Station, Patancheru, SangareddyDistrict |
04.05.2019 | 04.05.2019 | Section8(c) r/w 20(b)(ii)(c)of NDPSACt,1985 Ouantitv:508k9s ofGan a |
Cognrzable/ NonBarlable |
| 94/2020 af Prohibitionand Excise Station, Andole,Sangareddy District |
04.09.2020 | 04.09.2020 | SectionB(c)r/w 20(b) (ii)(c) of NDPSAct,1985 Ouantity:850kgs ofGania |
Cognizable/ NonBaiable |
_-l
9
he was transporting the said contraband from Darkonda to Zaheerabad, on the instructions of the detenu. Later, the detenu moved anticipatory bail petition in the said case and the Court concerned granted anticipatory bail to him on 1,9.12.2019 and subsequentry, he surrendered before the court concerned and was released on bail on 20.t2.ZOl9. The total quantity of Ganja seized from the possession of detenu and his associates is 508 kgs, In the other crime, i.e., Crime No.94/2020, the Assistant Commissioner oF Prohibition and Excise, Enforcement, Medak, and his team intercepted a Bolero Goods Carriage vehicle bearing registration No.Ap-10_W_ 2212 on O4.O7.2O2O at about 11:45 AM at Doulathabad X Road, Doulathabad (v), Hathnoora (M), Sangareddy District, and Found the detenu in the driving seat. Upon checking the vehicre, the excise officials found 425 packets of Ganja, each packet weighing 2 Kgs, totaling 850 Kgs of Ganja, being transported clandestinely underneath some groundnut bags, The officials arrested the detenu and sent him to judiciar custody. Later the detenu moved two bair petitions before the court concerned and both the bair petitions were dismissed' As righ,y contended by the rearned Government preader for Home, despite registering a case against the detenu for peddring of huge quantity of.Ganja. and though he was enlarged on anticipatory bair in the first case, he did not mend his attitude and was again caught red_handed peddling huge quantity of 'Ganja, weighing about 850 Kgs. Further, the detenu confessed that he, along with his associate, has been procuring Ganja from Andhra Orissa Border area and selling the same in the limits of Sangareddy District for pecuniary benefits. Under these circumstances, the findings c^thF respondents that the illegal activities of the detenu is a
I
l0
potential threat to thepublic heath atlarge and would disturbthe even tempo of lifeof the community which makes it prejudicial to the maintenance of thepublic order and there is imminent possibilityof the detenu againindulging in similar prejudicialactivities, cannot be brushed asid e.
g. In Shiv Prasad Bhatnagar'scase (1 supra) and Khaja Bilal Ahmed's case(2 supra), theHon'ble SupremeCourt held thatstale or irrelevant orvague grounds are suFficient to renderthe detention order illegal. In Dharmendra SuganchandChelawat'scase (3 supra), the Hon'bleApex Court definedthe expression"compelling reasons" as there must be cogentreasons before the detaining authority on the basisof whichit maybe satisfiedthat (a) the detenu is likely to be released from custodyin the near future, (b) taking into account the nature of the antecedent ofthe activitiesof the detenu, it is likely that, afterhe is released from custody, he would indulge inprejudicial activities, and(c) it is necessary to detain him to prevent him 'rom engaging in such activities.In the case of Champion R. Sangma(4 supra), theHon'ble Supreme Court held that the manner n which the respondentproceededin th€' matteris clearly impermissible, violative of the rule of law andoffends the petitioner's right under Article 21 of the Constitution as he was detained in custody by adopting totally faulty andillegal process. Itis settled law that each case has to be decided on its own facts and circumstances. In K. Lalitha's case (5 supra) and S.Anu's case(6 supra), a Division Bench of this Court had set aside the order of detentionpassed against the detenus therein, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the said cases. Hence, the decisions relied
---F
i
l
ARR,.] & Dr SA.J w P No.10 of 2021
l1
/
upon by the rearned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner are distinguishable from the facts and circumstances of the case on hand.
11, In the case of Madhu Limaye Vs. Sub-Divisional MagistrateT, the Hon'ble Apex Court held as follows
"The acts which disturb public tranquility or are breaches of the peace should not be given a naTrow meaning, but should be given a Jjberal interpretation. For the expression 'in the interest of public order'is very wide amplitude.,,
L2, In the case of Commissioner of police & Others Vs. C.Anita
(Smt.)8, the Hon'ble Apex Court examined the issue of,,public order" and "law and order" and observed as follows:
i 1970) ._r scc 116 'rllr{)Jl I( ( l(r7'
l
"The cruclalissueis whether the activities of the detenu wereprejudicial to public order' While the expression " aw and order"ls wider in scope inasmuchas contraventiorof law alwaysaffects order, "public order" has a narTower ambit, andpublicorder couldbe affectedby onlysuch contraventionwhich affects the communityor the publlr at large, Publicorder is the even tempo of life of the communitytaking the countryas a whole or even a specified locality.The distlnctionbetweenthe areasof "law and order" and "publicorder"is one of the degree and extentof the reachoftheactinquestiononSociety.Itisthepotentiality of the actto disturb the eventempoof life of the community which makesit prejudicial to the maintenanceof the public order. Ifa contraventionin its effectis confined only to a few individualsdirectlyinvolvedas distinct froma wide spectrum of thepublic,it could raise problem of law and order only' It is the length,magnitudeand intensity of the terror wave unleashedby a particular eruptionof disorderthat helps to distinguishlt as an act affecting "publicorder" from that concernlng"law and order"The questionto ask is: "Does it lead to disturbanceof the current life of the community so as to amountto a disturbance of the publicorder or dc'eslt affectmerely an individual leaving the tranquilityo'the Thisquestionhas to be faced in r:very societyu ndlsturbed?" case onits facts. "
1i ARR, J & DT SAJ W.P N_o..lO of 2021
any other person, or who abets in any other manner the doing of any such thing.
L4. Further, indisputably, an order of detention can be validly passed against a person who is in judicial custody and For that purpose/ it is necessary that the grounds of detention must show that the detainlng authority was aware of the fact that the detenu was already in detention and there shourd be cogent materiar on the basis of which, the detaining authority is satisfied that there are competing reasons, such as the detenu is likely to be released from custody in the near future and the activities of the detenu which indicate that he is Iikery to indurge in such activities if rereased and therefore it is necessary to detain him in order to prevent him from engaging in such activities' what wourd be the compering reasons in the context would depend on the facts and circumstances of each case. In the instant case, huge quantity of contraband was being transported by the detenu by concealing the same underneath some groundnut bags, This itself manifests the expertise of the detenu jn clandestinely transporting the contraband. The detaining authority was conscious that the detenu was in judiciar custody and it recorded its satisfaction that there is every likelihood of the detenu being released on bail and Iikely to indulge in similar illegal activities. Further, if the facts placed before the detaining a uthority are proximate to each other and the last fact mentioned is proximate to the order of detention, then, the early incidents cannot be treated as stale and detention order cannot be set aside.
1+
away bYfollowingthe procedure establishedby law' when it jeopardizes the Publicgood and not merelyprivate interests'An order ordetentionis not a curative or reformativeor punitlveaction' but apreventive action, the avowed object of which is to prevent the anti-socialand subversive elementsfrom imperiling the welfare of the people or thesecurityof the nation or from disturbingthe public tranquilityor from indulging in smugglingactivitiesor from engaging in illicit trafficin narcotic drugs and psychotropic substancesetc' In the instantcase,the commissionof alleged offences as indicatedin the abovetable clearly demonstratethat the detenu indulgedin ' to sell thesame to Youthand peddling substantialquantity of 'Ganja people addictedto drugs to make easy money'.which would certainly disturb thepublic peace and tranquility' As mentionedabove'the detenu,despite registering criminalcase againsthim' did not mend his attitudeand committed similar offence of peddling'ganla'inhuge quantity. So itis imperativeupon the officers concernedto pass the order ofdetention,since the acts of the detenu are prejudicial to the maintenanceof public order' The illegalactivities of the detenu were of such areach and extent, that they would certainly affect the even tempo oflife and the public health at large and are prejudicial to the public order.The detaining authority had sufficient material to record subjectivesatisfactionthat the detention of the detenu wasnecessary to maintain Pub'icorder and eventempo of life of the community' suffer from anYillegalitY. The The order ofdetention does not grounds of detention, as in d icated in the imPUgnedorder, are found to be relevanta nd intune with the provisions of the P D ActHis efforts toget bail in the secondcrime makes it amply clear that there is everypossibi ity of detenu committinq similaroffencesin fu tu re,
f-i rRR..'81 Dr SIJ \ P No 40 o1202l
which are prejudiciar to the maintenance of pubric order. Further, the material placed on record reveals that the detenu was supptied with the documents relied upon by the detaining authority in the language known to him, i.e., 'Telugu', besides'Hindi' and,English,. The material relied on and circumstances show that the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority is not tainted or illegal on any acc.unt' The facts and circumstances indicate that the acts of the detenu cannot be enectivery deart with under ordinary criminal raw. Under these circumstances, the detaining authority is justified in passing the impugned detention order.
The miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, in this Writ
Petition, shall stand closed.
\
To
^S3,!l',1T,#tiS,,*lH./ //TRUE COPY' @
SECTION OFFICER
1 2 9:: !9lgSmt B. Mohana Reddy Advocate IOpUCt ,ly8":r"r:l:the Advocate Generai, Hisi -c;;i;;;iJ strt" or reransana at 3 Two CD Corjies CHR
HIGH COURT
DATED:1910412021
ORDER
W.P.No.4O of 2021
.:4'*
-illt S14f\ i.
(
(il-
C iilr 20Zt
L) 03
DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS @5
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the detention order dated 24.11.2020 passed by the Collector and District Magistrate, Sangareddy, and the consequential confirmation order dated 13.02.2021 are liable to be set aside
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Shiv Prasad Bhatnagar vs. State of M.P and anotherDistinguished¶9
Shiv Prasad Bhatnagar vs. State of M.P and another, (1981) 2 Supreme Court Cases 456
Khaja Bilal Ahmed vs. State of Telangana and othersDistinguished¶9
Khaja Bilal Ahmed vs. State of Telangana and others, 2019 Supreme Court Cases Online SC 1617
Dharmendra Suganchand Chelawat vs. Union of India and othersDistinguished¶9
Dharmendra Suganchand Chelawat vs. Union of India and others, AIR 1990 Supreme Court 1196 · Who else cites this
Champion R. Sangma vs. State of Meghalaya and anotherDistinguished¶9
Champion R. Sangma vs. State of Meghalaya and another, (2015) 16 Supreme Court Cases 153
K. Lalitha vs. The State of Telangana and othersDistinguished¶9
K. Lalitha vs. The State of Telangana and others, decided on 21.11.2019 in W.P. No.19590 of 2019 by Telangana High Court
S. Anu vs. The State of Telangana and othersDistinguished¶9
S. Anu vs. The State of Telangana and others, decided on 23.01.2020 in W.P. No.26682 of 2019 by Telangana High Court
Madhu Limaye Vs. Sub-Divisional MagistrateRelied on¶11
Madhu Limaye Vs. Sub-Divisional Magistrate, (1970) 3 SCC 116 · Who else cites this
Commissioner of Police & Others Vs. C.Anita (Smt.)Relied on¶12
Commissioner of Police & Others Vs. C.Anita (Smt.)
6 provisions across 4 enactments
Jadav Nehru
The State of Telangana
The Collector and District Magistrate, Sangareddy District
The Superintendent, Central Prison, Cherlapally, Medchal District
A. Rajasheker Reddy
Shameem Akther
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
