THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO WRIT PETITION No.24256 of 2009 Date: 27.01.2010 Between : Rajala Satyavathi @ Sangadi … Petitioner and The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep.by its Principal Secretary, General Administration Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad and another. … Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO WRIT PETITION No.24256 of 2009 ORAL ORDER: (per the Hon’ble Sri Justice Nooty Ramamohana Rao) This writ petition has been instituted by the sister of the detenu calling in question the legality and validity of the order dated 19.10.2009, in proceedings Rc.No.C1(M)/2009/821, passed by the 2nd respondent-Collector and District Magistrate, East Godavari District, Kakinada, ordering for preventive detention of one Smt. Sangadi Satyavathi, w/o. Appa Rao, aged about 50 years, resident of D.No.47- 4-108/2, Yetimoga of Kakinada Urban, East Godavari District, exercising the power conferred under Section 3 (1) & (2), read with Section 2 (a) & (b) 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”). 2. The 2nd respondent detaining authority passed the order of detention dated 19.10.2009 taking into account and consideration three specific cases which have been booked against the detenu, being Crime No.57/09-10, dated 7.7.2009; Crime No.262/08-09, dated 30.11.2008; and Crime No.158/08-09, dated 20.9.2008. It is alleged that the detenu has been found in possession of illicitly distilled arrack, in the first case of 10 liters, in the second case of 100 liters, and in the third case of 250 liters. The samples, which have been collected from the material seized from possession of the detenu, when analysed by the Chemical Analyst, were found that the material tested was positive for Ethyl Alcohol, Acidity and Fusel Oil. The sample was confirmed to be illicitly distilled liquor, which is unfit for human consumption and injurious to health. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has strenuously submitted that the time gap between the instances, which have formed the grounds for detention, is fairly large and, therefore, stray instances have been taken into account and consideration by the detaining authority for passing the order of detention. Hence the order of detention is vitiated. 4. On the other hand, the learned Assistant Government Pleader, assisting the learned Advocate General, has drawn our attention that the instances are those, which have come out in good succession one after the other. The instances took place on 20.9.2008, 30.11.2008 and 7.7.2009. The learned Assistant Government Pleader, therefore, contends that the detenu was regularly indulging in the activities, which are dangerous to public good and interest and she has been circulating illicitly distilled liquor, which is unfit for human consumption, deserving preventive detention. 5. When we examined the record, we find that the instance that took place on 7.7.2009 is so close and proximate to the order of detention passed by the detaining authority on 19.10.2009. As rightly contended by the learned Assistant Government Pleader, the three instances, which have formed the basis, are followed one after the other in quick succession. They only indicate the regular and routine manner in which the dangerous activities are being carried out by the detenu. The last instance dated 7.7.2009, being very close and proximate to the order of detention passed on 19.10.2009, we do not consider that there is any merit in the contention of the writ petitioner that the instances, which have happened nearly a year before, have formed the basis for recording the satisfaction and hence it vitiated the order. On the contrary, the instances, which formed the basis, will only show the propensity of indulgence by the detenu. 6. When we have considered the Chemical Analyst report, there is absolutely no ambiguity about the findings therein, most importantly, it was found that the liquid was illicitly distilled liquor which was unfit for human consumption and injurious to public health. Therefore, the power available under sub-Section (2), read with sub-Section (1) of Section 3 of the Act is perfectly and legitimately exercised by the detaining authority and no exception needs to be drawn thereto. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the judgments rendered by this Court in CHALLA VENKATESWARA RAO v. COLLECTOR AND DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, KRISHNA DISTRICT[1] as well as DODDA SHARADA v. COLLECTOR AND DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, HYDERABAD DISTRICT[2]. 8. In the first case, it is significant to notice that the illicit liquor that is alleged to have been recovered from possession of the detenu was very small quantity of 5 liters and 10 liters and further the inference drawn by the detaining authority has not been based upon any material on record. Consequently, the Division Bench of this Court, which dealt with CHALLA VENKATESWARA RAO’s case (1 supra), has no hesitation to set aside the order of preventive detention. 9. In the second case, the Full Bench of this Court, which dealt with DODDA SHARADA’s case (2 supra), had considered various principles which govern the law of preventive detention, exhaustively, and culled out two principles, inter alia, which are of some significance for our case too; one is that the finding of the Chemical Analyst that the illicit liquor is injurious to health must be based upon appropriate finding of the components of the illicit liquor, and the second principle is until and unless the opinion of the detaining authority is exclusively based upon the credible material, the detaining authority could not pass an order in exercise of power under sub-Section (2), read with sub-Section (1) of Section 3 of the Act. When we bear these two principles in mind and apply them to the factual scenario present before us, it becomes very clear to us that both the principles enunciated by the Full Bench of this Court have been complied with and acted upon by the detaining authority while passing the order of detention, dated 19.10.2009. The detaining authority has taken into account and consideration the factum of propensity of indulgence of the detenu at regular intervals in an activity, which is considered as dangerous to the public good and order. The Chemical Analyst has found the sample tested as positive for Ethyl Alcohol, Acidity and Fusel Oil and the percentage of proof spirit hydrometer strength of alcohol was found by him to be 60.4 UP. Therefore, it is difficult for anyone to characterize the opinion given by the Chemical Analyst as not based upon proper evaluation of the appropriate parameters in that regard. 10. Further, the detaining authority, by subscribing to the view of the Chemical Analyst that the illicitly distilled liquor is unfit for human consumption and injurious to health, has not done anything wrong, inasmuch as he has endorsed the view of the expert Chemical Analyst. He has no contra material before him to arrive at any different conclusion. Hence the order of preventive detention dated 19.10.2009 passed by the 2nd respondent and as approved by the 1st respondent- State Government and the Board in G.O.Rt.No.5330, General Administration (Law & Order.II) Department, dated 7.11.2009, cannot be taken any exception to. 11. We, therefore, find no merit in the writ petition and the same is dismissed, at the stage of admission. No order as to costs. _________________________ JUSTICE D.S.R. VARMA _____________________________________ JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO 27.01.2010. Msr THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO WRIT PETITION No.24256 of 2009 27.01.2010 (Msr) [1] 2005 (1) ALT 124 (D.B.) [2] 2005 (1) ALD (Crl) 408