JUDGEMENT
C.V. Nagarjuna Reddy, J. -
(1.)The detention of the petitioner's husband, by name Mohammed Munawar Ali @ Ganja Munawar @ Baraf (for short 'the detenu') vide order Ref.No.02/PDC/NZB/2018, dated 10.02.2018, passed by respondent No.3, as confirmed vide G.O.Rt.No.574, General Administration (Spl. (Law & Order) Department, dated 24.03.2018, issued by respondent No.2 under the Telangana Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Dacoits, Drug Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders and Land Grabbers Act, 1986 (for brevity "the Act") is assailed in this writ petition.
(2.)A perusal of the grounds of detention shows that the detenu figured as an Accused in as many as 8 cases involving Narcotics Drugs. The grounds of detention, however, referred to and relied upon Crime No.6/2017 of Nizamabad Town-VI Police Station, Nizamabad; and Crime No.21/2018 of Nizamabad Rural Police Station, registered for the offences punishable under Section 20(b)(ii)(c) of the NDPS Act. The accusation against the detenu along with others is that they are transporting Ganja from Ravulapalem village of East Godavari District of Andhra Pradesh to the Parking Yard of the detenu at Nizamabad and that the detenu has ordered to provide 44 packets each containing 2 kgs of Ganja paying Rs. 80,000/- as an advance. The police have also seized certain quantities of Ganja from the detenu. Respondent No.3 in his detention order stated that though the detenu was arrested and remanded to judicial custody, considering the detenu's antecedent criminal back ground and involvement in Crime No.21/2018, he is satisfied that there is a likelihood of the detenu moving bail petition and coming out on bail and indulging in similar activities, which are prejudicial to the public order causing wide spread danger to public health.
(3.)At the hearing, Sri T. Ajay Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, advanced two submissions, viz., (1) that the impugned detention order did not specify the period of detention and that, therefore, the same is liable to be vitiated on the said ground alone. In support of his submission, the learned counsel placed reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in LAHU SHRIRANG GATKAL v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA, THROUGH THE SECRETARY AND OTHERS,2017 7 LAWS(SC) 71; and (2) that the respondents have not followed the requirement of Section 10 of the Act by not referring the case of the detenu to the Advisory Board within three weeks from the date of his detention.
Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.