Maddipatla Santamma v. The Superintendent of Police, Chittoor, Chittoor District & Ors.
Case at a glance
Outcome
Dismissed
With this observation, the writ petition is dismissed
Provisions considered
Judgment
ORDER: (per the Hon’ble Sri Justice N.V. Ramana) Seeking production of the alleged detenu namely Maddipatla Reddy Narayana before this court and to set him free, the present writ of habeas corpus is filed by his wife. The case of the petitioner herein is that the alleged detenu is actively associated with public life and has got good reputation among the local people, but at the instance of his political opponents the respondents 3 and 4 have registered various crimes under the Forest Act, 1967 and Rules framed thereunder apart from cases under the provisions of A.P. Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleglgers, Dacoits, Drug Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders and Land Grabbers Act, 1986 (Act 1 of 1986), basing upon which the District Collector, Kadapa in exercise of the powers under Act 1 of 1986, passed detention proceedings C1/444/M/2011 dated 4.8.2011, which was approved by the Government of Andhra Pradesh in G.O. Rt. No. 3589 General Administration (Law & Order. II) Department dated 10.8.2011 and further confirmed in GO Rt. No.3920 GAD dated 3.9.2011. Aggrieved thereby, the alleged detenu filed W.P. No. 23698 of 2011 assailing the detention order and this Court by order dated 9.12.2011 dismissed the writ petition confirming the detention order. On appeal by the alleged detenu in Criminal Appeal No.1113 of 2012, the Apex Court by judgment dated
26.7.2012, quashed the detention order. While so, on
21.11.2012 the respondents have abducted the alleged detenu at 4.30 p.m. from the agricultural fields situated at Guttapalle village, Sambepalli Mandal without registering any crime and in the midnight, around ten plain-clothed police personnel, broke open the lock of the almirah and took away valuable documents, gold and jewellery and cash kept by the alleged detenu. On coming to know about the said abduction, the petitioner herein sent fax message to the Chief Justice apart from lodging a complaint before the A.P. State Human Rights Commission, Hyderabad in HR Case No. 2836 of 2012. It is further stated that though the alleged detenu was taken away on 21.12.2012, he was not produced before any court of law and, therefore, she apprehends danger to the life of her husband. Hence, the present writ petition. Pursuant to the notice issued by this court, the first respondent filed counter affidavit, the sum and substance of which is that the alleged detenu, who is accused No.3 in Cr. No.90 of 2012 of Gangavaram Police Station was arrested on 24.11.2012 pursuant to the confession of accused Nos. 1 and 2 in the said crime and the stolen property worth Rs.15,90,000/- was seized alleged detenu pertaining to the said crime, registered for the offences under Sec. 379 IPC, Sec. 27 of the A.P. Forest Act, Sec. 29 of the Wild Life Prevention Act, Sec. 3 of Redsandal Wood and Redsandal Transit Act and Sec. 55(2) of the Biological Diversity Act and he was produced before the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Palamaner. The rest of the allegations made by the petitioner in the affidavit are denied. As can be seen from the counter affidavit filed by the first respondent, the alleged detenu was arrested on
Operative part
24.11.2012 and remanded to judicial custody, while it is contention of the petitioner that he was illegally taken away on 21.11.2012 at 4.30 p.m. from the agricultural fields situated at Guttapalli village, Sambepalli Mandal and after filing of the present writ petition, seeking his production before this court he was produced before the jurisdictional Magistrate. The scope of a writ of habeas corpus is very limited. It is not in dispute that the alleged detenu is produced before the jurisdictional Magistrate on 24.11.2012 and, therefore, writ of habeas corpus cannot be issued. Having regard to the facts and circumstances, it is left open for the petitioner to avail the remedies open to her under law with regard to the alleged illegal detention of her husband by the respondents. With this observation, the writ petition is dismissed. Consequently, all the miscellaneous applications stand dismissed. No order as to costs. _________________ Justice N.V. Ramana ___________________ Justice P.Durga Prasad December 03, 2012 MAS.
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: With this observation, the writ petition is dismissed
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Forest Act, 1967; Indian Penal Code, 1860 — s. 379; A.P. Forest Act — s. 27; Wild Life Prevention Act — s. 29; Redsandal Wood and Redsandal Transit Act — s. 3; Biological Diversity Act — s. 55(2).
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.