Veerangandham Venkata Rao vs State Of Telangana And 3 Others

,,,,

Mr. Veerangandham Venkata Rao, the petitioner, has filed this Habeas Corpus petition on behalf of his son, Yedunuri Sandinti Teja @ Teja Reddy @",,,,

Avinash Reddy @ Veeragandham Teja, S/o. Venkat Rao, aged about 23 years, the detenu, challenging the detention order, vide No.62/PD-",,,,

CELL/CCRB/RCKD/2020, dated 10.11.2020, passed by the Commissioner of Police, Rachakonda Commissionerate, the respondent No.3, whereby,",,,,

the detenu was detained under Section 3(2) of the Telangana Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Dacoits, Drug-Offenders, Goondas,",,,,

Immoral Traffic Offenders, Land-Grabbers, Spurious Seed offenders, Insecticide Offenders, Fertilizer Offenders, Food Adulteration Offenders, Fake",,,,

Document offenders, Scheduled Commodities Offenders, Forest Offenders, Gaming Offenders, Sexual Offenders, Explosive Substances Offenders,",,,,

Arms Offenders, Cyber Crime Offenders & White Collar or Financial Offenders Act, 1986 (for short ""P.D. Act"").",,,,

We have heard the submissions of Sri M.Laxman Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri G.Malla Reddy, learned Assistant Government",,,,

Pleader for Home appearing on behalf of Additional Advocate General for the respondents and perused the record.,,,,

Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently contended that the impugned detention order is illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional, improper,",,,,

against the principles of natural justice and has been passed in a mechanical manner basing upon vague, irrelevant and non-existing grounds. Already",,,,

criminal law was set into motion against the detenu. Hence, there is no need for the respondents to invoke draconian preventive detention laws against",,,,

him. The allegation against the detenu is that he is habitually cheating the innocent job aspirants by collecting huge amounts from them on the pretext,,,,

of providing jobs in Government and private sectors and thus acting in a manner which is prejudicial to the maintenance of public order and thereby,,,,

disturbing the peace, tranquility and social harmony in the society. In any event, the said allegation would not satisfy the word 'White Collar Offender'.",,,,

All the six crimes relied upon by the detaining authority for preventively detaining the detenu are foisted against the detenu. Further, in four out of the",,,,

six crimes relied upon by the detaining authority, the detenu was granted bail by the Courts concerned. Further, the subjective satisfaction reached by",,,,

the detaining authority is illegal and tainted. The documents relied upon by the detaining authority were not supplied to the detenu. Further, the cases",,,,

alleged against the detenu do not fall within the ambit and scope of ""disturbing the public order"". They are confined within the ambit and scope of the",,,,

word ""law and order"". Since the detenu is alleged to be a 'White Collar Offender', he can certainly be tried and convicted under the Penal Code and/or",,,,

special law, if any. Thus, there was no need for the detaining authority to invoke the draconian preventive detention laws. Hence, the impugned",,,,

  detention order tantamounts to colourable exercise of power. The detaining authority has to be extremely careful while passing the detention,,,,

order, since the detention ipso facto adversely affects the fundamental right of personal liberty enjoyed by the detenu under Article 21 of the",,,,

Constitution of India. The detenu continues to be in judicial custody since 10.11.2020 and his health has been deteriorated and his family members are,,,,

facing financial crisis. The detention order is legally unsustainable and ultimately, prayed to set aside the same and allow the writ petition as prayed",,,,

for.,,,,

On the other hand, Sri G.Malla Reddy, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home, would contend that the detenu is a 'White Collar",,,,

Offender'. He made fake promises to the innocent job aspirants/unemployed youth to provide jobs in Government and private sectors/organizations,,,,

and made believe the youth with his glib talks and induced them to advance huge amounts and later, he neither provided jobs nor returned the amounts",,,,

and thereby cheated them in an organized way. He also cheated the gullible public by collecting money from them on the pretext of getting solved their,,,,

pending land issues. The illegal activities of the detenu have created a feeling of insecurity among gullible public, especially unemployed youth, thus",,,,

disturbing peace and tranquility in society and thus acted in a manner, which is prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. The unlawful activities of",,,,

the detenu were causing widespread danger to the gullible public and were detrimental to the public order. The series of crimes allegedly committed,,,,

by the detenu were sufficient to affect the even tempo of the society and create a feeling of insecurity in the minds of the people at large, especially",,,,

unemployed youth. Further, the detenu committed six crimes relied upon by the detaining authority in quick succession, i.e., within a span of three",,,,

months. The impugned detention order was passed basing on valid grounds and material placed before the respondents. All the mandatory provisions,,,,

and the safeguards envisaged under the Constitution of India were strictly followed while passing the impugned detention order and hence, the",,,,

impugned detention order does not suffer from illegality or impropriety. In four out of six crimes relied by the detaining authority, the detenu got bail",,,,

from the Courts concerned. Since there is every likelihood of the detenu getting bail in the remaining two crimes and with a view to prevent him from,,,,

further indulging in similar illegal activities which are detrimental to maintenance of public order, the impugned detention order was passed. Further,",,,,

the order of detention together with grounds of detention and the material relied upon by the detaining authority were supplied to the detenu in the,,,,

languages known to him, i.e., English and Telugu. Preventive detention is different from punitive detention. Preventive detention is a precautionary",,,,

measure basing on reasonable anticipation and it does not overlap with the prosecution. Further, the Advisory Board in its review meeting, upon",,,,

hearing the detenu and the concerned investigating officials and upon considering the entire material placed before it, rendered its opinion that there is",,,,

sufficient cause for detention of the detenu. On considering the opinion of the Advisory Board and upon considering the entire material independently,",,,,

the Government confirmed the impugned detention order, vide G.O.Rt.No.229, General Administration (Spl. (Law & Order)) Department, dated",,,,

28.01.2021. Therefore, the detaining authority was legally justified in passing the impugned detention order. There are no grounds to grant the relief",,,,

sought by the petitioner and ultimately, prayed to dismiss the writ petition.",,,,

In view of the submissions made by both sides, the point that arises for determination in this Writ Petition is:",,,,

Whether the impugned detention order, dated 10.11.2020, passed by the Commissioner of Police, Rachakonda Commissionerate,",,,,

respondent No.3, and the consequential confirmation order, dated 28.01.2021, passed by the Principal Secretary to Government, General",,,,

Administration (Spl. (Law & Order)) Department, respondent No.1, are liable to be set aside?""",,,,

POINT:,,,,

Briefly, the facts of the case are that by relying on six criminal cases registered against the detenu in the year 2020, i.e., Crime Nos.538/2020,",,,,

542/2020, 547/2020, 608/2020, 1080/2020 and 744/2020, within the limits of Rachakonda Commissionerate, the respondent No.3-Commissioner of",,,,

Police, Rachakonda Commissionerate, passed the impugned detention order, dated 10.11.2020. According to the respondent No.3, the detenu is a",,,,

'White Collar Offender' and he has been habitually cheating the innocent unemployed youth with his glib talks by collecting huge amounts from them,,,,

on the pretext of providing jobs in Government and private sectors/organizations. He also indulged in cheating the gullible public by collecting money,,,,

from them on the pretext of getting solved their pending land issues. The illegal activities of the detenu are creating large scale fear and insecurity,,,,

among the gullible public, especially unemployed youth, which is prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. In four out of six crimes relied by the",,,,

detaining authority, the detenu got bail from the Court concerned. Since there is every likelihood of the detenu getting bail in the remaining two crimes",,,,

and with a view to prevent him from further indulging in similar illegal activities which are detrimental to maintenance of public order, the impugned",,,,

detention order, dated 10.11.2020, was passed, which was confirmed by the Government by order, dated 28.01.2021.",,,,

The material placed on record reveals that the detenu- Yedunuri Sandinti Teja @ Teja Reddy @ Avinash Reddy @ Veeragandham Teja, S/o.",,,,

Venkat Rao, aged about 23 years, is a 'White Collar Offender'. He had been habitually engaging himself in unlawful acts and committed several",,,,

offences of cheating the innocent people in the limits of Rachakonda Police Commissionerate. The detenu induced the innocent job,,,,

aspirants/unemployed youth by promising to provide them jobs in both Government and private sectors/organizations. He made believe the youth with,,,,

his glib talks and induced them to advance huge amounts. Later, the detenu neither provided jobs, nor returned the amounts and thus cheated them. He",,,,

also cheated gullible people by collecting money from them on the pretext of getting solved their pending land issues. The detaining authority relied on,,,,

six cases for preventively detaining the detenu. We shall present them in a tabular column, the date of occurrence, the date of registration of FIR, the",,,,

Crime No.,Date of Occurrence,"Date of registration

of FIR",Offences,Nature

5 3 8 / 2 0 2 0 of

Medipally Police

Station","May & July, 2020",06.09.2020,"Sections 406 & 420

r/w 34 of IPC","Section 406 IPC:

Cognizable/Nonbailable

Section 420 IPC :

Cognizable / Non

Bailable

5 4 2 / 2 0 2 0 of

Hayathnagar Police

Station","February & May,

2020",07.09.2020,Section 420 of IPC,"Cognizable / Non

Bailable

5 4 7 / 2 0 2 0 of

Medipally Police

Station",09.09.2020,09.09.2020,"Sections 417, 420,

465, 468 & 471 of

IPC","Section 417, 465 IPC:

NonCognizable/Bailable,

Section 420, 468 IPC :

Cognizable / Non

Bailable; Section 471 of

IPC:

Cognizable/Bailable

6 0 8 / 2 0 2 0 of

Saroornagar Police

Station","August, 2020",11.09.2020,Section 420 of IPC,"Cognizable / Non

Bailable

1080/2020 of LB

Nagar Police

Station","July & August, 2020",23.09.2020,"Sections 420, 384,

385, 504, 506 r/w 34

of IPC","Section 504, 506 IPC :

NonCognizable/Bailable;

Section 420, 384, IPC :

Cognizable / Non

Bailable; Section 385 of

IPC:

Cognizable/Bailable

7 4 4 / 2 0 2 0 of

Kukatpally Police

Station","August, 2018",24.09.2020,"Sections 406, 420 of

IPC","Section 406 IPC:

Cognizable/Nonbailable

Section 420 IPC :

Cognizable / Non

Bailable

Bench of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, speaking through M.P.Thakkar, J (as His Lordship then was) observed as under:-",,,,

The entire community is aggrieved, if the economic offenders, who ruin the economy of the State, are not brought to book. A murder may",,,,

be committed in the heat of moment upon passions being aroused. An economic offence is committed with cool calculation and deliberate,,,,

design, with an eye on personal profit, regardless of the consequence to the community. A disregard for the interest of the community can be",,,,

manifested only at the cost of forfeiting the trust and faith of the community in the system to administer justice in an even-handed manner,,,,

without fear of criticism from the quarters, which view white-collar crimes with a permissive eye, unmindful of the damage done to the",,,,

national economy and national interest.""",,,,

In the instant case, having regard to the modus operandi of the detenu and the six crimes registered against him in quick succession, the 3rd",,,,

respondent, in our considered view, has rightly held that detenu is a 'while collar offender' under clause (x) of Section 2 of Act 1 of 1986, and recorded",,,,

his satisfaction that the activities of the detenu are prejudicial to the maintenance of public order, and that ordinary law will not be sufficient to deal",,,,

with such illegal activities. The material relied upon and circumstances show that the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority is not tainted or,,,,

illegal on any account.,,,,

Further, the Hon'ble Apex Court, in the decision reported in Subrahmaniah Vs. State of Tamilnadu (2012) 4 SCC 699, held that the subjective",,,,

satisfaction reached by the detaining authority, cannot be interfered with by this court, except in exceptional and extremely limited grounds and that",,,,

this Court cannot substitute its own opinion with that of the detaining authority and that the sufficiency or otherwise of the grounds is not for this court,,,,

to determine and it is for the detaining authority to form subjective satisfaction.,,,,

In another decision in State of Punjab Vs. Sukhpal Singh (1990) 1 SCC 35, the Hon'ble Apex Court expressed similar view. It was held as follows:",,,,

Preventive order is devised to afford protection to society. The object is not to punish a man for having done something but to intercept before he",,,,

does it and to prevent him from so doing. The justification of such detention is suspicious or reasonable probability and not criminal conviction which,,,,

can only be warranted by legal evidence. Thus, any preventive measures, even if they involve some restraint or hardship upon individuals, do not",,,,

partake in any way of the nature of punishment, but are taken by way of precaution to prevent mischief to the State...When power is given to an",,,,

authority to act on certain facts and if that authority acts on relevant facts and arrives at a decision, which cannot be described as either irrational or",,,,

unreasonable, then the order is not bad and the Court cannot substitute the decision or opinion in place of the decision of the authority concerned on",,,,

the necessity of passing the order.""",,,,

Further, a perusal of the material placed on record reveals that out of six crimes relied upon by the detaining authority, the detenu was granted bail",,,,

in four crimes by the Courts concerned. It is the case of the respondents that the impugned detention order was passed as there is every likelihood of,,,,

the detenu getting bail in the other two crimes and indulging in similar prejudicial activities, which are detrimental to the public order. Under these",,,,

circumstances, the contention of the respondents that the illegal activities of the detenu would disturb the even tempo of life of the community which",,,,

makes it prejudicial to the maintenance of the public order and there is imminent possibility of the detenu again indulging in similar prejudicial activities,",,,,

cannot be brushed aside.,,,,

Here, it is apt to state that the essential concept of preventive detention is not to punish a person him for something he has done, but to prevent him",,,,

from doing it. The basis of detention is the satisfaction of the executive of a reasonable probability of the likelihood of the detenu acting in a manner,,,,

similar to his past acts and preventing him by detention from doing the same. A criminal conviction on the other hand is for an act already done which,,,,

can only be possible by a trial and legal evidence. There is no parallel between prosecution in a Court of law and a detention order under the Act. One,,,,

is a punitive action and the other is a preventive act. In one case a person is punished after proving his guilt beyond reasonable doubt whereas in,,,,

preventive detention, a man is prevented from doing something which is necessary for reasons mentioned in Section 3 of the Act. Thus, the power of",,,,

preventive detention is qualitatively different from punitive detention. The power of preventive detention is a precautionary power exercised in,,,,

reasonable anticipation. It may or may not relate to an offence. It is not a parallel proceeding. It does not overlap with prosecution, even if it relies on",,,,

certain facts for which prosecution may be launched or may have been launched. An order of preventive detention may be made before or during,,,,

prosecution and in anticipation or after discharge or even acquittal. The pendency of prosecution is no bar to an order of preventive detention. An,,,,

order of preventive detention is also not a bar to prosecution. Also, 'Public order' is distinct from 'law and order'. While individual offences without",,,,

affecting public at large could be considered as violating 'law and order', the offences that affect larger public and disturbs the even tempo of public",,,,

life fall under the category of disturbance to public order and only in the latter category of cases, the law of preventive detention shall be enforced.",,,,

Further, an order or detention is not a curative or reformative or punitive action, but a preventive action, the avowed   object of which is to prevent",,,,

the anti-social and subversive elements from imperiling the welfare of the people or the security of the nation or from disturbing the public tranquility,,,,

or from indulging in white collar offences. In the instant case, the commission of alleged offences by the detenu in a quick succession as indicated in",,,,

the above table clearly demonstrates that the detenu made fake promises to the innocent job aspirants/unemployed youth to provide jobs in,,,,

Government and private sectors/organizations and made believe the youth with his glib talks and induced them to advance huge amounts and later, he",,,,

neither provided jobs nor returned the amounts and thereby cheated them in an organized way. He also cheated the gullible public by collecting money,,,,

from them on the pretext of getting solved their pending land issues. The modus operandi of the detenu in the alleged offences, which were committed",,,,

in quick succession, would certainly disturb the public peace and tranquility. So it is imperative upon the officers concerned to pass the order of",,,,

detention, since the acts of the detenu are prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. The illegal activities of the detenu were of such a reach and",,,,

extent, that they would certainly affect the even tempo of life and were prejudicial to the public order. The order of detention does not suffer from any",,,,

illegality. The grounds of detention, as indicated in the impugned order, are found to be relevant and in tune with the provisions of the P.D.Act. Since",,,,

the detenu got bail in four out of six crimes relied upon by the detaining authority, there was nothing wrong on the part of the detaining authority in",,,,

raising an apprehension that there is every possibility of the detenu getting bail in other two crimes and   indulging in similar prejudicial activities,",,,,

which would again certainly affect the public order. Further, the quick succession of commission of alleged offences by the detenu makes it amply",,,,

clear that there is every possibility of detenu committing similar offences in future, which are prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. The",,,,

material placed on record reveals that the detenu was supplied with the documents relied upon by the detaining authority in the language known to him,",,,,

i.e., 'English', besides 'Telugu'. The facts and circumstances indicate that the acts of the detenu cannot be effectively dealt with under ordinary",,,,

criminal law. Under these circumstances, the detaining authority is justified in passing the impugned detention order. We do not see any merit in this",,,,

Writ Petition and as such, it is liable to be dismissed.",,,,

The Writ Petition is, accordingly, dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.",,,,

The miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, in this Writ Petition, shall stand closed.",,,,