Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Gajji Veeresh, was detained under a preventive detention order dated 01.03.2014 passed by the Deputy Commissioner and District Magistrate, Raichur, under the Karnataka Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Gamblers, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders and Slum-Grabbers Act, 1985. The detention was continued for one year by an order dated 07.05.2014. The petitioner, represented by his wife, filed a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India seeking quashing of these orders and direction to set him at liberty. The petitioner's counsel argued that the Deputy Commissioner passed the impugned order without applying his mind, as the petitioner had already been acquitted in so many criminal cases. The offences attributed to the petitioner were all excise offences, which could be dealt with under ordinary criminal law. The counsel relied on the Supreme Court judgment in Munagala Yadamma v. State of Andhra Pradesh. The respondents were represented by the Government Advocate. The court, after hearing the submissions, found merit in the petitioner's arguments. The court noted that the petitioner had been acquitted in multiple cases and the offences were excise offences. The court held that when the detenu has been acquitted in so many criminal cases and the offences can be dealt with under ordinary criminal law, the preventive detention order cannot be sustained. The court quashed the impugned orders dated 01.03.2014 and 07.05.2014 and directed the respondents to set the petitioner at liberty forthwith.
Headnote
A) Preventive Detention - Bootlegger - Karnataka Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Gamblers, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders and Slum-Grabbers Act, 1985 - Section 2(a) and 3 - The petitioner challenged the preventive detention order passed by the Deputy Commissioner on the ground that he was already acquitted in several criminal cases and the offences attributed were excise offences. The court held that when the detenu has been acquitted in multiple cases and the offences can be dealt with under ordinary criminal law, preventive detention is not justified. The impugned orders were quashed and the petitioner was directed to be set at liberty. (Paras 2-4) B) Preventive Detention - Application of Mind - Karnataka Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Gamblers, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders and Slum-Grabbers Act, 1985 - Section 3 - The petitioner argued that the Deputy Commissioner passed the detention order without applying his mind. The court, relying on Munagala Yadamma v. State of Andhra Pradesh, held that when the detenu is already acquitted in so many criminal cases, the detention order cannot be sustained. (Paras 2-4)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the preventive detention order under the Karnataka Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Gamblers, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders and Slum-Grabbers Act, 1985 is sustainable when the detenu has been acquitted in multiple criminal cases and the offences alleged are excise offences that can be dealt with under ordinary criminal law.
Final Decision
The court quashed the impugned orders dated 01.03.2014 and 07.05.2014 and directed the respondents to set the petitioner at liberty forthwith.
Law Points
- Preventive detention
- Bootlegger
- Ordinary criminal law
- Application of mind
- Karnataka Prevention of Dangerous Activities Act 1985
