Tummala Gunnamma v. The Station House Officer, Venkatagiri, Nellore District
Case at a glance
Outcome
Dismissed
Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed, at the stage of
Provisions considered
- A.P.Forest Act, 1967 ss. 29(2)(b), 29(4)(a)(1)
- Indian Penal Code, 1860 s. 379
Judgment
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA AND HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO WRIT PETITION No.15530 of 2009 Between: Tummala Gunnamma. And … Petitioner
The Station House Officer, Venkatagiri, Nellore District.
The Superintendent of Police, Nellore District.
The Deputy Forest Range Officer, Venkatagiri, Nellore District.
The Forest Range Officer, Nellore District. … Respondents. The Court made the following: HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA AND HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO TAKEN UP WRIT PETITION NO.15530 of 2009 ORDER: - (per the Hon’ble Sri Justice D.S.R.Varma) Heard learned Assistant Government Pleader, representing the learned Advocate General, appearing for the respondents.
2. This Writ of Habeas Corpus is initiated at the instance of the petitioner’s telegram, dated 29.07.2009, wherein it is alleged that when she along with her husband, by name Tummala Kondaiah, who is the alleged detenu were to have dinner the Deputy Range Officer, Venkatagiri, by name Bhaskara Reddy, entered into her house along with his staff and taken away the alleged detenue without any cause or complaint and she was apprehending that the forest officials were trying to encounter the alleged detenue.
3. In reply to the same the counter-affidavit was filed by the Deputy Forest Officer, Venkatagiri, Nellore District, stating inter alia that, on 28.07.2009, after receiving credible information with regard to smuggling of Red sanders wood from Venkatagiri forest, the Forest Beat Officer, along with armed forces of Venkatagiri Forest Range, Nellore district, was patrolling in Venkatagiri Range and when reached Siddhavaram _ Thirthampad junction road, near veterinary hospital, on 28/29.07.2009, at about 00.30 p.m., they caught the alleged detenue red-handedly, while he was in possession of Red Sanders wood, and initiated proceeding against him, effected his arrest under Section 29(2) (b) of the A.P.Forest Act, 1967 , Rule 3 of A.P.Sandal Wood and Red Sander Wood Transit Rules, 1969 r/w section 29 (4)(a)(1) of A.P.Forest Act, 1967 and also under Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code and after complying with all the formalities, he was produced before the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Venkatagiri, on 29.07.2009, who remanded him to Judicial custody and that he was lodged in Sub-Jail, Gudur, Nellore District.
3. In view of the above facts, it is apparent that the alleged detenue was detained through legal process. Hence, the detention of the detenue cannot be called as illegal and hence no interference by this Court is warranted, in this matter.
Operative part
4. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed, at the stage of admission. However, there shall be no order as to costs. JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA ________________________ JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO _________________________ 17-08-2009. Lmv
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed, at the stage of
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
A.P.Forest Act, 1967 — ss. 29(2)(b), 29(4)(a)(1); Indian Penal Code, 1860 — s. 379.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.