THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO W.P.No.26246 of 2009 Date: 23-12-2009 Between Ganta Nagamani … Petitioner and State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, General Admn. Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad and another … Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO W.P.No.26246 of 2009 Oral Order: (per D.S.R.Varma, J.) Heard Sri N.V.Anantha Krishna, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader, representing the learned Advocate General, appearing for respondents 1 and 2. 2. This writ petition is directed against the impugned order of detention dated 05-11-2009 passed by respondent No.2 directing the detention of the husband of the petitioner, by name Ganta Ramana @ Pala Ramana, for the offences said to have been committed under the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Boot-Leggers, Dacoits, Drug-Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders and Land Grabbers Act, 1986 (for brevity ‘the Act’), which was approved by the Board and the Government. 3. From the order of detention, it appears that the Detaining Authority i.e., respondent No.2 had shown 8 grounds in all and on all occasions, the alleged detenu was found to have involved in excise related offences. All the instances were registered as under: i) Crime No.401/2009-10, dated 31-10-2009 ii) Crime No.396/2009-10, dated 31-10-2009 iii) Crime No.73/2009-10, dated 29-5-2009 iv) Crime No.60/2009-10, dated 24-5-2009 v) Crime No.588/2008-09, dated 27-01-2009 vi) Crime No.215/2008-09, dated 27-8-2008 vii) Crime No.146/2008-09, dated 18-7-2009 viii) Crime No.139/2008-09, dated 14-7-2008. 4. Taking into consideration the frequent involvement of the alleged detenu in the offences, the Detaining Authority had passed the order of detention under the Act. 5. The contention of the learned Counsel for petitioner is that in all the occasions except one, the detenu was allegedly involved on the basis of a confession made by another accused and in such circumstances, it is not desirable to invoke jurisdiction under the Act and pass the order of detention. 6. But, this contention cannot be sustained, inasmuch as there is no law to that effect. 7. Further, even gone by the facts, the incidents said to have taken place on 31-10-2009 in Crime No.401/2009-10; and on 18-7-2008 in Crime No.146/2008-09, the alleged detenu was found to be in possession of illicit liquor and the samples were drawn and the report of the analyst would only reveal that the said substance was not fit for human consumption and therefore, the same was capable of affecting the public order. 8. Furthermore, in the other incidents cited by the Detaining Authority, it is found that on the basis of confession made by another accused, the detenu was figured as an accused in all the criminal cases and he is liable to face the trial. 9. Therefore, out of the said eight instances, at least in two instances, the alleged detenu was found in possession of illicit liquor, which was injurious to the health of the public and that apart, as already noticed, in the other cases, crimes were registered against the detenu on the basis of confession made by another accused and the detenu was figured as accused No.2 in all the cases. 10. Therefore, we cannot doubt the inference drawn by the Detaining Authority while assessing the conduct of the detenu for the purpose of passing the impugned order of detention under the Act. 11. The other contention of the learned Counsel for petitioner is that in both the cases, where the detenu was found to have personally involved, there were no mediators and a special report was drafted and therefore, it is contended that since no mediator had come forward, the presumption should be in favour of the detenu and that the Detaining Authority cannot simply and automatically arrive at the conclusion that the detenu was personally involved in the offences. 12. This contention also cannot be countenanced simply on the ground that on all occasions, mediators may not come forward or may not be readily available at the spot, where the seizure of the contraband is to be effected. In such circumstances, only a special report would be drafted and the same would be based for the purpose of implication of the detenu in such crimes. No specific law or procedure had been coming forth by either side. But, having regard to the facts and circumstances, we are of the view that necessary steps with due care and diligence were taken before implicating the detenu in crimes of the present nature. 13. Furthermore, we are of the view that the detenu was allegedly caught on two occasions as having personally involved and on the other six occasions, on the strength of confession made by another accused. The very fact that he was caught on two occasions in his individual capacity would only strengthen the proximity of the detenu in the offences he was found to have been involved. 14. It cannot be forgotten that the detenu is an accused in all the eight cases and the frequency is furthermore aggravating the hostile factor, which perhaps force the Detaining Authority to pass the impugned order of detention. The standard of adjudication of these offences in trial by a competent criminal court is different from the impugned order of detention, which is also punitive in nature. The object of the Act, in simple terms, is to prevent recurrence of the offences, which affect the public order. 15. For the foregoing reasons, we do not find any illegality or irrationality in the impugned order of detention passed by the Detaining Authority. 16. In the result, the writ petition is dismissed, at the stage of admission. ___________________ JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA ____________________ JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO 23rd December, 2009. Ak