Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 78 (AP)

Thalluri Shirisha v. State of Telangana

2018-01-30

C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, G.SHYAM PRASAD

body2018
ORDER : C.V. Nagarjuna Reddy, J. One Thalluri Sathish, s/o Venkateshwar Rao, (for short, ‘the detenue’), was detained by order dated 06.03.2017 of respondent No.2 under the provisions of Sub-Section (2) of Section (3) of the Telangana Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Boot Leggers, Dacoits, Drug Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders and Land Grabbers Act, 1986 (Act No.1 of 1986) (for short, ‘the Act’). 2. The gravamen of the allegations against the detenue is that he is involved in as many as 23 cases of house burglary and one case of chain snatching and all those cases, details of which were given in the impugned detention order, are under investigation. Out of the 24 cases referred to in the detention order, in the grounds of detention, respondent No.2 relied upon seven cases of the year 2016-17. The grounds also referred to the factum of recovery of stolen articles, such as laptops, televisions, ornaments etc., either from the detenue or his associates. Based on the above facts, the detenue was detained by respondent No.2 on arriving at satisfaction that, with a view to prevent the detenue from acting in any manner prejudicial to the public order, such detention is necessary. The detention order was confirmed by respondent No.1 vide G.O.Rt.No.989 dated 25.04.2017. 3. Sri Kowturu Pavan Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the facts recorded in the detention order show that majority of recoveries out of the seven cases was made from the alleged associates of the detenue and, therefore, this fact suggests (1) that the detenue is not guilty of commission of serious offences; and, (2) that the nature of the offences alleged against the detenue, at best, would cause disturbance to law and order and not to public order. In support of his submission, he has placed reliance on the decision of a Division Bench of this Court in K. Ramanamma v. Govt. of A.P. & others, 1998(2) ALT 709 (DB). 4. The learned Government Pleader for Home submitted that the detenu is a habitual offender involved in committing house burglaries and that so far 24 cases have been registered against him and his associates and therefore respondent No.2 has rightly invoked the provisions of the Act. 5. In Chandsi Sah Vs. The State of Telangana and others, 2017(6) ALT 62 (DB), the detenus were accused in property related offences. 5. In Chandsi Sah Vs. The State of Telangana and others, 2017(6) ALT 62 (DB), the detenus were accused in property related offences. The allegation against them was that in the guise of polishing gold and silver articles in the limits of Hyderabad and Cyberabad Police Commissionerates, Adilabad and Nizamabad Districts of Telangana State and also in the State of Maharashtra, they were indulging in a series of property offences, thereby, creating large scale fear among the public and affecting the public order. A Division Bench of this Court speaking through one of us (CVNR,J) referring to the case law in Dr. Ram Manohar Lohia v. State of Bihar and Ors., MANU/SC/0054/1965 ; Haradhan Saha v. The State of West Bengal and Ors., MANU/SC/0419/1974 : (1975) 3 SCC 198 ; N. Meera Rani v. Government of Tamil Nadu and Anr., MANU/SC/0381/1989 : (1989) 4 SCC 418 ; Pushkar Mukherjee and 29 Ors. v. The State of West Bengal, MANU/SC/0027/1968 : (1969) 1 SCC 10 ; Rajesh Gulati v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Anr., MANU/SC/0714/2002; State of Maharashtra & Ors. V. Santosh Shankar Acharya, MANU/SC/0472/2000 : (2000) 7 SCC 463 ; T.V. Saravanan @ S.A.R. Prasana Venkatachaariar Chaturvedi v. State through Secretary and Anr, MANU/SC/2301/2006., held as follows: 17. If we apply the legal position as discussed above to the facts of the present case, we have no doubt in our mind that the acts of the detenus have the potential of disturbing the even tempo of life which makes it prejudicial to the maintenance of public order because the alleged acts were not directed against a specific individual but the same were directed against the public at random. These acts would certainly create a fear psychosis in the minds of general public that there is a possibility of their being cheated. We have, therefore, no hesitation to hold that the acts of the detenus are such that they are not confined only to law and order but they disturb public order.” 6. In the present case also, the detenu and his associates are accused for committing burglary of valuable items such as ornaments, laptops, televisions and thereby creating fear psychosis in the minds of public at large. In the present case also, the detenu and his associates are accused for committing burglary of valuable items such as ornaments, laptops, televisions and thereby creating fear psychosis in the minds of public at large. As held by this Court in Chandsi Sah (supra) though the offences committed may be against an individual, the same were directed against the public at random, thereby, creating fear psychosis in the minds of public, creating the fear that their articles may also being stolen by the act of burglary. Therefore, we are unable to accept the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the offences in connection with which the detenu is detained did not have the effect of causing disturbance to public order. 7. As regards the judgment in K. Ramanamma (supra), a perusal of the same would show that the two Constitution Bench judgments of the Supreme Court in Dr. Ram Manohar Lohia (supra) and Haradhan Saha (supra) have not been brought to the notice of this Court. At any rate, on the facts of the said case, the Division Bench has opined that the same did not warrant invocation of provisions of Preventive Detention Act. Therefore, the said judgment could be of no avail to the petitioner. 8. Therefore, the Writ Petition fails and the same is, accordingly, dismissed. No costs.