Mohd. Abdul Qayyum vs State Of Telangana

Crime No.,"D a t e of

Occurrence","Date of registration

of FIR",Offences,Nature

2 2 / 2 0 2 0 of

Kanchanbagh Police

Station","O n the intervening

night of

19/20.01.2020",20.01.2020,Section 435 of IPC,Cognizable/ Bailable

7 7 / 2 0 2 0 of

Chandrayangutta

Police Station","O n the intervening

night of 11.02.2020",11.02.2020,Section 436 of IPC,Cognizable/ Bailable

4 0 / 2 0 2 0 of

Madannapet Police

Station","O n the intervening

night of 14.03.2020",14.03.2020,"S e c t ions 295A,

153A(2) and 436 of

IPC","Sections 295A &

153A(2) IPC

Cognizable/ Non-

Bailable

Section 436 IPC

Cognizable/ Non-

Bailable

Further, in the case of Madhu Limaye Vs. Sub-Divisional Magistrate (1970) 3 SCC 746. The Hon’ble Apex Court held as follows:",,,,

“The acts which disturb public tranquility or are breaches of the peace should not be given a narrow meaning, but should be given a liberal",,,,

interpretation. For the expression ‘in the interest of public order’ is very wide amplitude.â€​,,,,

In the case of Commissioner of Police & Others Vs. C.Anita (Smt.) (2004) 7 SCC 467, the Hon’ble Apex Court examined the issue of ""public",,,,

order"" and ""law and order"" and observed as follows:",,,,

“The crucial issue is whether the activities of the detenu were prejudicial to public order. While the expression ""law and order"" is wider in scope",,,,

inasmuch as contravention of law always affects order, ""public order"" has a narrower ambit, and public order could be affected by only such",,,,

contravention which affects the community or the public at large. Public order is the even tempo of life of the community taking the country as a,,,,

whole or even a specified locality. The distinction between the areas of ""law and order"" and ""public order"" is one of the degree and extent of the reach",,,,

of the act in question on society. It is the potentiality of the act to disturb the even tempo of life of the community which makes it prejudicial to the,,,,

maintenance of the public order. If a contravention in its effect is confined only to a few individuals directly involved as distinct from a wide spectrum,,,,

of the public, it could raise problem of law and order only. It is the length, magnitude and intensity of the terror wave unleashed by a particular eruption",,,,

of disorder that helps to distinguish it as an act affecting ""public order"" from that concerning ""law and order"". The question to ask is: ""Does it lead to",,,,

disturbance of the current life of the community so as to amount to a disturbance of the public order or does it affect merely an individual leaving the,,,,

tranquility of the society undisturbed?"" This question has to be faced in every case on its facts.""",,,,

As per the clause (g) of Section 2 of the P.D.Act, a ""goonda"" means a person, who either by himself or as a member of or leader of a gang,",,,,

habitually commits, or attempts to commit or abets the commission of offences punishable under Chapter XVI or Chapter XVII or Chapter XXII of",,,,

the Indian Penal Code.,,,,

The essential concept of preventive detention is not to punish a person for something he has done, but to prevent him from doing it. 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 in between,,,,

prosecution in a Court of law and a detention order under the P.D.Act. One is a punitive action and the other is a preventive act. 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.,,,,

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

respondent No.2, in our considered view, has rightly held that detenu is a ‘goonda’ under clause (g) 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 may not be an effective",,,,

deterrent to prevent the detenu from indulging in further prejudicial activities. The material relied upon and circumstances show that the subjective,,,,

satisfaction of the detaining authority is not tainted or illegal on any account. 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.",,,,

Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. No order as to costs.",,,,

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