THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI Writ Petition No.65 of 2011 Between : G.Reddeiah .. Petitioner and The Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Chief Secretary, Secretariat, Hyderabad and 2 Others .. Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI Writ Petition No.65 of 2011 ORDER : (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice Noushad Ali) The petitioner who is the brother-in-law of the detenu R.Srinivasulu, son of Ramachandra, aged about 27 years, resident of Ramapuram Village, Ramapuram Mandal, Y.S.R. District, has filed this Writ Petition seeking a Writ of Habeas Corpus directing the respondents to produce the said detenu by declaring the detention order passed by the Collector and District Magistrate, Kadapa, Kadapa District in Reference No.670/M/2010, dated 12.11.2010, as illegal. 2. The activities indulged in, reveal that the detenu was the main person in organizing hiring of labours, felling of red-sanders trees through gangs in the nearby reserve forest areas and transporting, smuggling, and committing theft of the said forest wealth. The said activities have caused deforestation impacting ecological balance affecting the community as a whole. The detenu was found to be indulging in the aforesaid activities habitually. He was found to be involved in as many as eight times within a period of one year. Cases registered against him are : (1) OR No.130/2009-10, dated 22.02.2010 of Rayachoty Range, (2) OR No.01/2010-11, dated 01.04.2010 of Rayachoty Range, (3) OR No.13/2010-11, dated 11.05.2010 of Rayachoty Range and FIR/Gaaliveedu PS Cr.No.40/10, (4) OR No.18/2010-11, dated 23.05.2010 of Rayachoty Range and (5) FIR No.46/10, dated 27.05.2010 of Veeraballi P.S. and OR No.20/2010-11, dated 30.05.2010 of Rayachoty Range (6) OR No.02/2010-11, dated 03.04.2010 of Rayachoty Range and (7) FIR No.75/10, dated 03.10.2010 of Veeraballi P.S. and OR No.60/2010-11, dated 04.10.2010 of Rayachoty Range; (8) Crime No. 9/10 of Ramapuram P.S. Keeping in view the aforesaid activities and the gravity of the offences which have great impact on the environment and national wealth, and as the said activities fall within the meaning and ambit of Section 2(g) of the Andhra Pradesh Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Boot Leggers, Dacoits, Drug Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders and Land Grabbers Act, 1986 (for short ‘Act 1 of 1986), the 2nd respondent-District Collector ordered detention of the detenu by orders dated 12.11.2010. The said order was approved by the State Government by orders in G.O.Rt.No.5657, General Administration (Law and Order.II) Department, dated 20.11.2010. The matter was referred to the Advisory Board constituted under Section 9 of the Act and the Board gave its opinion by its report dated 15.12.2010 recommending detention of the detenu. Therefore, the Government in exercise of its powers under Section 12(1) read with Section 13 of the Act vide orders in G.O.Rt.No.6150, General Administration (Law & Order II) Department, dated 22.12.2010, confirmed the order of detention directing that the detention should be for a period of 12 months from the date of his detention. This Writ Petition has been filed challenging the said detention orders. 3. Grounds of detention disclose the activities of the detenu. They are: i) OR No.130/2009-10, dated 22.02.2010 of Rayachoty Range : The first offence was on 22.02.2010. The Forest Range Officer, Rayachoty along with Deputy Range Officer, Rayachoty and other staff proceeded to Masineni Kanuma locality of Palakonda Reserve Forest in Saraswathipalli beat and noticed three persons lifting and storing red-sanders wood and preparing for transport, who on seeing the staff ran away from the scene. The three persons were identified. One among them was the detenu. 30 numbers of logs weighing 844 Kgs. were seized under a cover of special proceedings. An offence was registered vide POR No.6, dated 22.02.2010 under the following provisions: (a) Trespass in Reserve Forest under Section 20 (1) (c) (ii) of the A.P. Forest Act, 1967; (b) Causing damage by willfully cutting trees and dragging the same under Section 20 (1) (c), (iii) of the A.P. Forest Act, 1967; (c) Collection and removal of Red-Sanders timber under Section 20 (1) (c), (vi) and (x) of the A.P. Forest Act, 1967; (d) Transportation of Red-Sanders timber without any permit and without any Government Transit Mark under Section 29 (2) (b) of the A.P. Forest Act, 1967 and Rule 3 of A.P. Red- Sanders and Sandalwood Transit Rules, 1969; (e) Theft of Red-sanders timber from Reserve Forests under Section 378 of I.P.C. (f) Criminal Conspiracy to smuggle Red-sanders timber to unknown destinations from Government Forests under Section 120-B I.P.C. ii) OR No.01/2010-11, dated 01.04.2010 of Rayachoty Range : The second offence occurred on 01.04.2010 at 7.30 AM in the Gudukonda and Pathikona localities. The Deputy Ranger Officer and his staff reached the said area and noticed the movement of the detenu and two others, viz., Vallepu Venkata Ramana and Vallepu Gangaraju, who escaped from the scene of offence. They recovered 87 red-sanders logs weighing 2562 kgs. Later, on 26.08.2010, Vallepu Venkata Ramana and Vallepu Gangaraju were apprehended on 26.08.2010. During investigation, they confessed their involvement in all the offences enumerated in OR No.01/2010-11, dated 01.04.2010. Vallepu Venkata Ramana also confessed that the detenu was also involved in the said offence. The case was registered vide POR No.16, dated 01.04.2010 under following provisions: (a) Trespass in Reserve Forest under Section 20 (1) (c) (ii) of the A.P. Forest Act, 1967; (b) Causing damage by willfully cutting trees and dragging the same under Section 20 (1) (c), (iii) of the A.P. Forest Act, 1967; (c) Collection and removal of Red-Sanders timber under Section 20 (1) (c), (vi) and (x) of the A.P. Forest Act, 1967; (d) Transportation of Red-Sanders timber without any permit and without any Government Transit Mark under Section 29 (2) (b) of the A.P. Forest Act, 1967 and Rule 3 of A.P. Red-Sanders and Sandalwood Transit Rules, 1969; (e) Theft of Red-Sanders timber from Reserve Forests under Section 378 of I.P.C. (f) Criminal Conspiracy to smuggle Red-sanders timber to unknown destinations from Government Forests under Section 120-B I.P.C. iii) OR No.13/2010-11, dated 11.05.2010 of Rayachoty Range and aliveedu FIR / PS Cr.No.40/10 :- The third incident was on 8.05.2010. The Inspector of Police L.R.Palli Circle along with C.I. Rayachoty Rural Circle, C.I. Rayachoti Urban P.S. and other staff stopped two cars bearing Nos.AP-09-AJ- 5559 and AP-36-1223 at bus-stop, Burujupalli. The persons traveling in the cars were caught, who revealed their names as Nimma Mahesh, Bommisetti Sreenivasulu, Gudupuru Ramarajulu @ Ramu and Gami Reddy Baya Reddy. Nimma Mahesh revealed that he was acting as a pilot for transporting of red-sanders logs by the detenu Sreenivasulu, and one Prasad Reddy. Nimma Mahesh revealed that he is a friend of one Chappidi Mahesh Naidu, who is a red-sanders smuggler of T. Sundupalli Town and Mandal. As per the instructions of the said Mahesh Naidu, he stocked red-sanders logs in a mango garden of one Raghunadha Reddy. The detenu and Mahesh Naidu loaded the logs in two goods vehicles and two cars for transporting. The other persons, viz., Bommisetti Sreenivasulu Gudupuru Ramarajulu and Baya Reddy corroborated the said version of Nimma Mahesh Naidu. The police then reached the mango garden and found two goods vehicles and six persons, who identified themselves as 1) Adapala Laksmanna, 2) Thimmisetti Narasimhulu, 3) Konda Reddy Manohar @ Mani, 4) Chereddy Sekhar Reddy, 5) Kotha Nagaraju Reddy, and 6) Konda Mani Reddy. The vehicle bearing registration No.AP-21-T-2687 was found loaded with 60 logs and the vehicle bearing registration No.AP-03-U4458 was loaded with 48 logs. The cars were identified with registration Nos.AP- 09-AJ-5559 and AP-36-M-1223, and 98 red-sanders logs were found near them. The said logs numbering 206 red-sanders logs are worth R.30 lakhs. The four vehicles were seized under the cover of panchanama dated 8.05.2010. The police arrested the aforesaid persons and sized the logs and the vehicles and registered a case in Cr.No.40/10 under Section 379 IPC and Section 29 (A1) of the A.P. Forest Act read with Rule 3 of A.P. Red-Sandal wood Transit Act, 1969. The Forest Rang Officer, Rayachoti and his staff carried out further investigation and the accused and Nimma Mahesh during the investigation on 10.05.2010 confessed that they along with the detenu and one Prasad Reddy transported the logs from Reserve Forest area to the mango garden of Raghunadha Reddy and that vehicles were provided to them for transporting logs from there to Madanapalli. The Forest Range Officer, Rayachoty, also booked a case vide POR No.6229, dated 10.05.2010 under the following sections. 1. Trespass in Reserve Forests (Section 20 (1) (c) (ii) of the A.P. Forest Act, 1967). 2. Causing damage by willfully cutting trees and dragging the same (Section 20(1) (c) (iii) of the A.P. Forest Act, 1967). 3. Collection and removal of Red-sanders timber (Section 20(1) (c), (vi and (x) of the A.P. Forest Act, 1967.) 4. Transportation of Red-sanders timber without any permit and without any Government transit mark, (Section 29(2) (b) of the A.P. Forest Act, 1967 and Rule 3 of A.P. Red-sanders and Sanders wood transit Rules, 1969). iv) OR No.18/2010-11, dated 23.05.2010 of Rayachoty Range: On the intervening night of 22.05.2010 and 23.05.2010, the Forest Range Officer, Rayachoty and his staff during night patrolling noticed a Tata Sumo bearing registration No.AP03-V-2709 coming in the opposite direction. The forest officials noticed and identified the detenu and one A. Prasad Reddy, who stopping the vehicle at a distance fled way from the scene. The vehicle was found loaded with 32 red-sanders logs weighing 794 kgs. The Forest Range Officer, Rayachoty booked the case vide POR No.20, dated 23.05.2010 under the following sections. 1. Trespass in Reserve Forests (Section 20 (1) (c) (ii) of the A.P. Forest Act, 1967). 2. Causing damage by willfully cutting trees and dragging the same (Section 20(1) (c) (iii) of the A.P. Forest Act, 1967.) 3. Collection and removal of Red-sanders timber (Section 20 (1) (c), (vi) and (x) of the A.P. Forest Act, 1967). 4. Transportation of Red-sanders timber without any permit and without any Government transit mark. (Section 29 (2) (b) of the A.P. Forest Act, 1967 and Rule 3 of A.P. Red-Sanders and Sanders wood transit Rules, 1969. v) FIR No.46/10, dated 27.05.2010 of Veeraballi P.S. and OR No.20/2010-11, dated 30.05.2010 of Rayachoty Range: On 27.05.2010, the Inspector of Police, Rayachoty Rural Circle and Sub-Inspector of Police, Veeraballi P.S, along with their staff noticed one Indica Car bearing registration No.TN05-C-2950 followed by a lorry bearing No.AP03-V-3724. When the occupants tried to run away, the police chased them and caught hold of two persons, viz., Mopuri Ramu, (driver of the Car) and Nagappagari Babu (driver of the lorry) while another person escaped. The lorry was found loaded with 25 red-sanders logs. They confessed that the detenu was following as an escort and he ran away from the scene. The police registered a case in FIR No.46/10, dated 27.05.2010 under Section 379 IPC and Section 29 (A1) of the A.P. Forest Act 1967, read with Rule 3 of A.P. Red-Sandal wood Transit Act, 1969. The Forest Range Officer, Rayachoty, also booked a case vide POR No.20/2010-11, dated 30.05.2010 under the following sections. 1. Trespass in Reserve Forests (Section 20 (1) (c) (ii) of the A.P. Forest Act, 1967). 2. Causing damage by willfully cutting trees and dragging the same (Section 20 (1) (c) (iii) of the A.P. Forest Act, 1967.) 3. Collection and removal of Red-sanders timber (Section 20 (1) (c), (vi) and (x) of the A.P. Forest Act, 1967). 4. Transportation of Red-sanders timber without any permit and without any Government transit mark. (Section 29 (2) (b) of the A.P. Forest Act, 1967 and Rule 3 of A.P. Red-Sanders and Sanders wood transit Rules, 1969. vi) OR No.2/2010-11, dated 3.04.2010 of Rayachoty Range: On 2.04.2010, the Forest Range Officer, Rayachoty along with other staff found a vehicle bearing registration No.AP03-X-7290 carrying 22 red-sanders logs. They apprehended the driver while two others traveling in the vehicle escaped. The officials also apprehended one Gaddam Venkata Subbareddy, who was acting as an informer to the detenu. Both the driver and informer confessed that the detenu was the one, who escaped from the scene of offence. The Forest Range Officer, Rayachoty, booked the case vide POR No.2/2010-11, dated 3.04.2010 under the following sections. 1. Trespass in Reserve Forests (Section 20 (1) (c) (ii) of the A.P. Forest Act, 1967). 2. Causing damage by willfully cutting trees and dragging the same (Section 20 (1) (c) (iii) of the A.P. Forest Act, 1967.) 3. Collection and removal of Red-sanders timber (Section 20 (1) (c), (vi) and (x) of the A.P. Forest Act, 1967). 4. Transportation of Red-sanders timber without any permit and without any Government transit mark. (Section 29 (2) (b) of the A.P. Forest Act, 1967 and Rule 3 of A.P. Red-Sanders and Sanders wood transit Rules, 1969. 5. Theft of Red-sanders timber from Reserve Forests (under Section 378 I.P.C.). 6. Criminal conspiracy to smuggle Red-sanders timber to unknown destinations from Government Forests. (under Section 120B I.P.C.) vii) F.I.R.No.75/10, dated 3.10.2010 of Veeraballi P.S. and OR No.60/2010-11, dated 04.10.2010 of Rayachoty Range: On 3.10.2010 the Inspector of Police, Rayachoty Rural Circle and S.I. of Police, Veeraballi P.S., along with forest officials proceeded to Teacher Narayana Reddy mango garden located at Peddamadiga palli village, hamlet of Vongimalla and found four persons, viz., Murugu Siva Naidu, M.R. Reddaiah Reddy, Putha Gangi Reddy and Asadi Rama Chandraiah @ Chandra removing red-sanders logs from the bushes, and apprehended Murugu Siva Naidu, while others escaped. He confessed that the detenu was involved in taking away the logs three times in his vehicles. The S.I. of Police registered a case in Cr.No.75/10 under Section 379 IPC and Section 29 (A1) of the A.P. Forest Act read with Rule 3 of A.P. Red-Sandal wood Transit Act, 1969. The Forest Range Officer, Rayachoty, also booked a case vide POR No.60/2010-11, dated 04.10.2010 under the following sections. 1. Trespass in Reserve Forests (Section 20 (1) (c) (ii) of the A.P. Forest Act, 1967). 2. Causing damage by willfully cutting trees and dragging the same (Section 20 (1) (c) (iii) of the A.P. Forest Act, 1967.) 3. Collection and removal of Red-sanders timber (Section 20 (1) (c), (vi) and (x) of the A.P. Forest Act, 1967). 4. Transportation of Red-sanders timber without any permit and without any Government transit mark. (Section 29 (2) (b) of the A.P. Forest Act, 1967 and Rule 3 of A.P. Red-Sanders and Sanders wood transit Rules, 1969. viii) Crime No.92/10 of Ramapuram P.S.:- On 9.10.2010 Sub-Inspectors of Galiveedu and Veeraballi, C.I., L.R. Palli along with staff and panchayatdars while proceeding towards the forest found a Tata Sumo and a Ford Icon car and when the occupants tried to escape, apprehended them. One among them was the detenu. He confessed that he is a friend of Nimma Mahesh, Prasad Reddy and others, and explained his activities in purchase and sale of red-sanders. The police seized the vehicles and 36 logs and arrested the detenu registering crime No.92/10 under Section 379 IPC and Section 29 (A1) of the A.P. Forest Act read with Rule 3 of A.P. Red-Sander Wood Transit Rules 1969. 4. A careful consideration of the above activities would disclose that the detenu was habitually committing offences punishable under Chapter XVII of the I.P.C. and his activities are prejudicial to the maintenance of public order, and the same provide justification for the detenu. 5. However, Sri C.Padmanabha Reddy, learned Senior Counsel instructed by Sri D.Kodandarami Reddy would challenge the detention on the sole ground that Ground No.4, which is one of the grounds invoked against the detenu does not disclose commission of offence punishable under Chapters XVI, XVII or XXII of the I.P.C. According to the learned counsel, a person to be considered as ‘goonda’ under Section 2 (g) of the Act must have been charged with commission for offences falling under the said Chapters of the I.P.C. He would submit that as the detenu has not been accused of indulging in those prohibited activities, ground No.4 is an irrelevant ground and hence it cannot form a legitimate basis to rely upon for detention. It is therefore, submitted that when an irrelevant ground creeps into an order, it would vitiate the entire order of detention. The learned counsel would place reliance on a decision of the Apex Court in Mustakmiya Jabbarmiya Shaik v. M.M. Mehta, Commissioner of Police and ors.[1] 6. The learned Assistant Government Pleader while refuting the said contentions would contend that the activities of the detenu would squarely fall within the prohibited activities under the Act and Ground No.4 would also disclose commission of offence under the IPC. Omission to specifically mention the provisions of IPC in charge No.4 does not vitiate the detention order. She placed reliance on – 1. W.P.No.13261 of 2005 dated 01.08.2005 2. W.P.No.6923 of 2010 dated 20.04.2010 3. W.P.No.1833 of 2005, dated 23.03.2005 W.P. (Crl.) No.463 of 1989 7. In order to appreciate the aforesaid contention, it is useful to extract ground No.4 of the grounds of detention to the extent relevant: “4. OR No.18/2010-11, dated 23.05.2010 of Rayachoty Range :- The Forest Ranger Officer, Rayachoty, Forest Beat Officer, Saraswathipalli Beat, Forest Beat Officer, Pandillapalli Beat, Assistant Beat Officer, Saraswathipalli Beat during regular night patrolling at Konampeta during intervening night of 22.05.2010 and 23.05.2010 received information of loading of Red-sanders wood illegally into vehicle at Mudikanuma Rastha locality. They have immediately proceeded towards the said area via Ramapuram – Saraswathipalli Road. They have noticed a TATA Sumo vehicle coming in opposite direction at about 3.00 AM on 23.05.2010. On trying to stop the said vehicle, the accused traveling in the vehicle have stopped at a distance and ran away in the darkness. The Forest staff have chased them, but could not apprehend. But in the light of the Government jeep they could identify the offenders as No.(1) R.Sreenivasulu (RMP Doctor), S/o Rama Chandra, R/o. Ramapuram (2) A.Prasad Reddy, S/o Ranga Reddy, R/o Ganganeru (3) Vallepu Venkata Ramana, S/o Chinnappa, R/o Vaddepalli. The forest staff on inspection of the vehicle have noticed the Registration No.AP 03-V-2709. On searching the inside of the vehicle they have noticed Red-sanders logs. The logs were not having any Government transit mark. On calling for the panchayatdars, none of them have come forward due to the fear of smugglers. Hence the proceedings of the detection of offence case and seizures were made under the cover of special proceedings. They have serially numbered (1 to 32) the detected Red-sanders logs (dressed) with Blue color paint, took the measurements such as length, girth and weight and put the seize hammer mark. The weight of the total quantity of 32 R.S. logs detected is 794 Kgs of value Rs.42876/-. The forest staff have seized the said vehicle bearing Registration No. AP 03-V-2709 and the 32 R.S. logs under transit in the said vehicle and transported to the Range Office Complex, Rayachoty. The seizures are kept under the safe custody of the Forest Beat Officer, Saraswathipalli Beat. The Forest Beat Officer, Saraswathipalli Beat has booked offence case vide POR No.20, dated 23.05.2010 under following sections : 1) Trespass in Reserve Forests (section 20 (1) (c) (ii) of the A.P. Forest Act, 1967). 2) Causing damage by willfully cutting trees and dragging the same (section 20 (1) (c), (iii) of the A.P. Forest Act, 1967). 3) Collection and removal of Red-sanders timber (section 20 (1) (c), (vi) and (x) of the A.P. Forest Act, 1967). 4) Transportation of Red-sanders timber without any permit and without any Government transit mark (section 29 (2) (b) of the A.P. Forest Act, 1967 and Rule 3 of A.P. Red-Sanders and Sandal wood transit Rules, 1969)……….” 8. The definition of “goonda” under the Act takes in its fold, not only the actual commission of offences punishable under Chapters XVI, XVII and XXII of the I.P.C. but also attempt to commit or abet to the commission of such offences. As many as 8 instances including the one covered in the ground No.4 have been cited showing the activities of detenu. It is true that in 7 instances offences were registered for theft under Section 378/379 I.P.C. in addition to the commission of offences registered under the provisions of the A.P. Forest Act, 1967 and A.P. Red-Sanders and Sandalwood Transit Rules, 1969, except Ground No.4 in which there is no specific allegation regarding the offence under Section 378/379 I.P.C. But a perusal of the said ground would show that the Forest officials during patrolling found a Tata Sumo vehicle moving loaded with red-sander logs. The officials also identified the detenu who escaped from the place of offence after noticing the patrolling officials. The transportation of logs was found to be without any permit and transit marks. It is therefore evident that there was an attempt to take away the forest produce unauthorizedly and dishonestly out of the forest area. We are therefore of the view that once the forest produce was attempted to be taken away without the required permits, it would be an offence not only under the provisions of the Forest Act, but also an offence under Section 378/379 I.P.C. We are of the opinion that when the substance of the allegation to the said effect in Ground No.4 is clear, a mere omission to specifically mention the charge, is of no consequence. Even if ground No.4 is ignored, indisputably there are seven other incidents showing offences under Section 379 IPC. These incidents are proximate in point of time to one another and therefore constitute valid grounds. They show that the detenu was addicted to commit forbidden acts habitually. It may be mentioned that detention of a person under the Act and punishment under the I.P.C. operate in two different zones – detention aims at preventing a person from repeating illegal activities, whereas punishing a guilty is the objective of Penal Code. 9. The judgment of the Apex Court in Mustakmiya Jabbarmiya Shaik’s case cited by the petitioner in our view does not support the case of the petitioner. In the said case, the Apex Court was dealing with the detention in which the detenu was involved in 5 offences/activities – (i) offence committed on 24.04.1993 under Sections 307, 452/34 I.P.C. & 25 (1) (a) of the Arms Act & Section 135 (1) of Bombay Police Act; (ii) Offence committed on 11.04.1994 under Section 212/214 I.P.C.; (iii) offence committed on 10.08.1994 alleging purchase of goods worth Rs.500/- and on demand of the price thereof dragging and beating the businessman and pointing out revolver towards public; (iv) offence committed on 12.08.1994 relating to stopping the witness and beating him doubting that he was informing Police about his anti-social activities and pointing out revolver towards public; and (v) offence dated 14.08.1994 under Section 25 (1) of the Arms Act. The Apex Court discarded the first incident, dated 24.04.1993 on the ground that the criminal Act was directed only against an individual which has nothing to do with the question of public order and that the incident was not approximate in point of time to other incidents. The offences alleged in the second incident under Section 212/214 of the I.P.C. does not fall under Chapters 16 or 17 of the I.P.C. The incidents which took place on 10.08.1994 and 12.08.1994 were discarded on the ground that the said incidents had no adverse effect prejudicial to the maintenance of public order and the said acts are only stray incidents. The 5th incident dated 14.08.1994 was considered as a stray incident and that there was no material to show that the detenu was habitually engaged in the criminal activities. From the perusal of the judgment as above, it is evident that the facts therein are different from the facts of the instant case and therefore in our view the said judgment has no application to the facts of the case. 10. On the other hand, as pointed out by the learned Assistant Government Pleader, the learned Division Bench of this Court in W.P.No.13261 of 2005, dated 01.08.2005 considering