HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V. ESWARAIAH W.P. No. 11134 of 2010 DATED: 07.03.2011 Between: G.Eshwari .. Petitioner And 1. The Government of A.P. 2. The Advisory Board 3. The District Collector & District Magistrate 4. The Superintendent, Central Prison .. Respondents O R D E R:- (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice V. Eswaraiah) The petitioner asserts that her husband is not involved in any of the Crime Nos. 176/2009-10, 724/2009-2010, 832/2009-2010 and 1096/2009 alleged to have been registered against him on the ground that he has been found in possession of arrack, and he has been falsely implicated in those cases. While so, it is stated that the 3rd respondent- District Collector and District Magistrate issued orders of detention dated 31.03.2010 against her husband under Sections 3(1) & (2) and 2(a) & (b) of the A.P. Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Boot-Leggers, Dacoits, Drug Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders and Land Grabbers Act, 1986 (for short “the Act”) from the date of service of this order on him in the Central Prison situated in Rajahmundry. The main grievance of the petitioner is that even though none of the above referred crimes reached finality, the 3rd respondent, without giving any notice, issued the impugned order of detention merely based on the information placed before him that the husband of the petitioner is involved in committing the offences of manufacturing, possession, transport, sale/distribution of illicitly distilled liquor/Arrack in contravention of Section 7-A read with 8(e) of A.P. Prohibition (Amendment) Act, 1997 and also abating the commission of illegal activities,. Hence, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition seeking writ of Habeas Corpus to set the detenue at liberty by declaring the detention order as void and illegal. The 3rd respondent filed counter denying the averments of the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition and stated that the petitioner’s husband was found in possession of arrack in the above-referred crimes. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the detenue is innocent and a law abiding citizen hailing from a respectable agricultural family of East Godavari District, and he is implicated falsely in various criminal cases, and the detention order dated 31.03.2010 passed by the 3rd respondent without specifying the period of detention, and subsequent order dated 22.04.2010 issued by the Government continuing the period of detention for a period of 12 months, which is in the nature of final order, are illegal and unsustainable, and he was released on bail in all cases. It is further stated that it is well settled law that mere unfitness for human consumption and injurious to health would not become illicitly distilled liquor and it was further held that percentage of impurities are not mentioned while giving the certificate whether illicit liquor is in permissible limit or not. It is his further submission that the husband of the petitioner is falsely implicated in the alleged crimes only with an intention to divert the issue and also cover up their latches to the incident that took place in their District in the month of January, 2010. Heard the learned counsel for both the parties and perused the material placed on record. We are unable to accept the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner because in the instant case, the detention order was initially passed by the 3rd respondent-District Collector based on the material placed before him in exercise of the powers conferred on him under Sections 3(1) & (2) and 2(a) & (b) of the Act. The order also reveals that powers have been delegated on the 3rd respondent-District Collector and District Magistrate to pass order of detention under Section 3(1) & (2) of the Act. Here, the petitioner is not questioning the authority or otherwise of the 3rd respondent in passing the detention order. Initially, the detention order dated 31.3.2010 was passed without specifying any period of detention, as such, it cannot be said that the order is valid and existing for twelve months from the date of passing the detention order, however according to Section 3(3) of the Act, if any detention order is passed by the District Collector he shall forthwith report the fact to the Government together with the grounds on which the order has been made, and such other particulars as in his opinion, have a bearing on the matter, and no such order shall remain in force for more than twelve days after the making thereof, unless, in the meantime, it has been approved by the Government. In the instant case, the first detention order was passed on 31.03.2010 and the approval was made on 08.04.2010 i.e. well within the prescribed period of 12 days. Therefore, it cannot be said that the approval sanctioned by the Government under Section 3(3) of the Act is illegal and unsustainable. The petitioner has not questioned any other legal infirmity or fulfillment of the provisions of the Act. The detention order along with the grounds was supplied to the detenue within the prescribed time. In fact, the matter has to be placed before the Advisory Board for review within three weeks as contemplated under Section 10 of the Act, and the Advisory Board shall submit its report within seven weeks from the date of receipt of the detention order, whereas in the instance case, the matter was placed before the Advisory Board within three weeks from 31.3.2010 i.e. on 20.4.2010. Three weeks expired by 21.04.2010. Therefore, it is clear that the Advisory Board submitted its report on the same day when the matter was placed before it i.e. well within the prescribed time as contemplated under Section 11(1) of the Act and the Government, in pursuance of the report of the Advisory Board, issued orders in G.O.Rt.No.1928 dated 22.4.2010 continuing the period of detention of the detenue for a period of 12 months. Therefore, it cannot be said that the order dated 22.04.2010 issued by the Government, is for the first time and is a final order under Section 12(1) read with 13 of the Act detaining the detenue for a maximum period of 12 months. Insofar as the alleged involvement of the detenue in various criminal cases for statistical purpose, is concerned, we are afraid that we cannot deal with those aspects. In fact, the learned Assistant Government Pleader submits that the detenue was convicted in two cases, but we are of the opinion that while considering the legality, validity or otherwise of the detention order, it is not for this Court to go into the merits of the case. The limited scope of judicial review is to find whether the provisions of the Act have been violated or fulfilled and if there is any violation of the provisions of the Act by the 3rd respondent, the detenue is entitled to be set at liberty. In the instant case, we do not see any non- compliance of the provisions of the Act by the respondents. In the instant case, the detenue was caught red handed in Cr.No.724 of 2009-2010, dated 27.11.2009 while transporting 60 litres of arrack which was seized under cover of mediators report and a sample was sent for chemical analysis and the chemical examiner, after analyzing the sample, opined that it is illicitly distilled liquor, unfit for human consumption and injurious to health as it is containing fusel oil, acids etc., and accordingly, submitted a report on 05.12.2009. Charge sheet was also filed in C.C. No.126 of 2010. In another case in Cr.No.1096 of 2009, dated 14.3.2010 also the detenue was caught red-handed while he was possessing and manufacturing 60 litres of arrack and 630 litres of F.J.Wash and the arrack was seized, and samples were sent to chemical examiner, who submitted a report dated 27.03.2010 stating that the sample was illicitly distilled liquor, unfit for human consumption and injurious to health as it is containing fusel oil, acids etc. and another sample is fermented jaggery wash which is fit for distillation of arrack/I.D. Liquor, and thereafter, cases were registered under Section 7-A read with 8(e) of the A.P. Prohibition (Amendment) Act, 1997 in C.C.No.128 of 2010. No doubt, in other two cases in Cr.No.126 of 2009 dated 17.6.2009 and Cr.No.832 of 2009-2010, dated 29.12.2009, the petitioner was said to have been absconding from the scene of offence though the other two accused were arrested. Simply because he was absconding and was not caught red-handed in the two cases, it cannot be inferred that he was not involved in any of the alleged crimes, and admittedly he was caught red-handed in the other two cases. For the foregoing reasons, we do not see any justifiable grounds to set the detenue at liberty, and hence, the writ petition is devoid of merits and the same is, accordingly, dismissed. No order as to costs. ________________ V. ESWARAIAH, J 07.03.2011 __________________ V. SURI APPA RAO, J bcj