G. REDDEIAHversusTHE GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH & ANR.

                       [2011] 12 S.C.R. 454


A                      G. REDDEIAH
                             v.
      THE GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH & ANR.
            (Criminal Appeal No. 1761 of 2011)
                       SEPTEMBER 9, 2011
B
        [P. SATHASIVAM AND DR. B.S. CHAUHAN, JJ.]

        Andhra Pradesh Prevention of Dangerous Activities of
   Boot Leggers, Dacoits, Drug Offenders, Goondas, Immoral
C Traffic Offenders and Land Grabbers Act, 1986: s.3(1) -
   Detention order - Detaining Authority found that the detenue
   was habitually indulging in trespassing forest area, illicit
   cutting, felling, smuggling and transporting red-sanders trees
   and committing theft of forest wealth as many as eight times
o within a period of one year- Conclusion of Detaining authority
   approved by Government and upheld by the High Court - On
   appeal, held: The grounds of detention showed that the
   Detaining Authority, after scrutinising all the details including
   various orders of arrest and release, bail on various dates and
E notings held that the detenue was a master-mind in
   organising the felling of red-sanders trees owned by the
   Government and also providing vehicles for illegally
   transporting the red-sanders wood, hiring of labourers from the
   fringe forest villages and responsible for destruction of
F valuable governmental property and the provisions of normal
   law were not sufficient in ordinary course to deal firmly
   because of his habitual nature - After satisfying all aspects
 - including the fact that the detenue was in jail for sometime
   and the factum of his release from the jail in 4 criminal cases,
G Detaining Authority passed an order of detention with a view
   to prevent him from further indulging into such offences -
   There was no infirmity either in the reasoning of the Detaining
   Authority or procedure followed by it - The detenue was
   afforded adequate opportunity at every stage and there was

H                                454
   G. REDDEIAH v. GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA                     455
              PRADESH & ANR.
no violation of any of the safeguards - In view of enormous       A
activities of the detenue violating various provisions of /PC,
the A.P. Act and the Rules, and his habituality in pursuing the
same type of offences, the reasoning of the Detaining
Authority as approved by the Government and upheld by the
High Court is justified - A.P. Forest Act, 1967 - A.P. Sandal     B
Wood & Red Sanders Transit Rules, 1969 -Penal Code,
1860.

     Prevention detention - Concept of - Held: The detention
is not to punish detenue for something he has done but to         C
prevent him from doing it.

     The pros.ecution. case was that the detenue was
habitually committing forest offences, particularly, felling,
cutting and smuggling of red sanders wood causing loss
to national wealth and was involved in such 8 cases               D
within a period of 1 year. The Detaining Authority held that
the detenue was a goonda under Section 2(g) of the
Aridhra Pradesh Prevention of Dangerqus Activities of
Efoot Leggers, Dacoits, Drug Offenders, Goondas,
Immoral Traffic Offenders and Land Grabbers Act, 1986.            E
The brother-in-law of the detenue filed a writ of habeas
corpus before the High Court, which was dismissed. The
instant appeal was filed challenging the order of the High
Court.
                                                                  F
    Dismissing the appeal, the Court

    HELD: 1. Section 3 of the of the Andhra Pradesh
Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Boot Leggers,
Dacoits, Drug Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic
Offenders and Land Grabbers Act, 1986 enables the                 G
Government to detain certain persons whose activities
are prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. If the
Government/Detaining Authority is able to satisfy that a
person either by himself or in association with other
                                                                  H
    456      SUPREME COURT REPORTS             [2011] 12 S.C.R.


A members habitually commits or attempts or abets such
  commission of offence punishable under IPC, A.P. Act
  and the Rules subject to satisfying Section 3 of the 1986
  Act, he can be detained in terms of the said Act. The
  essential concept of preventive detention is that the
B detention of a person is not to punish him for something
  he has done but to prevent him from doing it. [Para 6, 7]
  [465-8; 466-8-D]

          Haradhan Saha vs. State of West Bengal & Ors. (1975)
c 3 sec 198: 1975 (1) SCR 778 - relied on.
        2. A reading of the grounds of detention clearly
   indicated that the detenue had been indulging in various
   activities in felling and smuggling red-sanders and he
   was habitually committing the same and was unmindful
D of wastage of national forest wealth and public order. It
   also showed that it was not a solitary or stray incident
   but continuously maintaining his activities commencing
  .from 22.02.2010 till 09.10.2010 in destroying the forest
  ·wealth. It clearly showed that he was habitually
E committing these offences. On going through all the
   details relating to various. offences, incidents and
   activities, the conclusion of Detaining Authority that by
   invocation of normal procedure, the activities of the
   detenue cannot be controlled. is acceptable. Detaining
F Authority was well within its powers in passing the
   impugned order of detention. [Para 8) [467-H; 468-A-D]

          Union of India vs. Paul Manickam and Another (2003) 8
    sec 342:2003 (4) Suppl. SCR 618 - relied on.
G      3. The contention was raised on behalf of the
  appellant that even though the detenue was arrested on
  09.10.2010 and was released on bail on 10.11.2010, the
  detention order was passed on 12.11.2010, the aspect
  that the detenue was in custody till 10.11.2010 was neither
H specifically adverted to and considered in the detention
    G. REDDEIAH v. GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA                457
               PRADESH & ANR.
order nor the sponsoring authority placed any material        A
regarding the same, hence, the ultimate detention order
passed 12. 11.2010 cannot be sustained. If the Detaining
Authority was aware of the relevant fact, namely, that he
was under custody from 09.10.2010 and he would be
released or likely to be released or as in this case          B
released on 10.11.2010 and if an order is passed after due
satisfaction in that regard, undoubtedly, the order would
be valid. The said objection was neither raised before the
Advisory Board nor in the representation to the
Government and was not mentioned in the grounds of            c
challenge and argued before the High Court. This ground
was not even raised in the special leave petition. It was
not in dispute that such objection was not raised
anywhere except during the course of argument. It was
also not in dispute that the detenue was given adequate
                                                              0
opportunity of hearing before the Advisory Board and all
his grievances were addressed to by the Board and
submitted its report. The Government, on going through
the entire materials including the report of the Advisory
Board as well as the representation of the detenue,
considering the gravity of the offence alleged against him    E
and his habituality, confirmed the order of detention.
[Para 9, 11, 12] [468-D-F; 469-H; 470-A-D; 470-F-G]

    M. Ahamedkutty vs. Union of India & Another (1990) 2
SCC 1: 1990(1) SCR 209 ; Anant Sakharam Raut vs. State        F
of Maharashtra and Anr. (1986) 4 SCC 771: 1987 (1) SCR
221 - relied on.
    4. The grounds of detention running into 60 pages
and the order of detention to 5 pages clearly
demonstrated various details about the involvement of         G
the detenue violating the provisions of IPC, A.P. Act and
the Rules. The details furnished in the grounds of
detention clearly showed the application of mind on the
part of the Detaining Authority. It was not the case of the
                                                              H
    458    SUPREME COURT REPORTS              [2011] 12 S.C.R.


 A detenue or the appellant that the required relevant and
   relied on materials were not furnished which prevented
   him from making effective representation to the
   Government. The detailed report of the Inspector of Police
   and Sponsoring Authority clearly showed that the
 B detenue was a master-mind in organising the felling of
   red-sanders trees owned by the Government and also
   providing vehicles for illegally transporting the red-
   sanders wood, hiring of labourers from the fringe forest
   villages and responsible for destruction of valuable
.C governmental property. It also showed that it was he
   who operated gang for d~struction of the national wealth
   causing defo.restation leading to ecological imbalance
   affecting the community as a whole. The grounds of
   detention also showed that the Detaining Authority, after
   scrutinising all the details including various orders of
 0
   arrest and release, bail on various dates and noting that
   he was habitually indulging in trespass in forest area,
   illicit cutting, felling, smuggling and transporting red-
   sanders from the reserved forest owned by the State,
   arrived at a definite conclusion that the provisions of
 E normal law were not sufficient in ordinary course to deal
   firmly because of his habitual nature and after satisfying
   all aspects including the fact that the detenue was in jail
   from 09.10.2010 to 10.11.2010 and the factum of release
   from the jail in 4 criminal cases, passed an order of
 F detention with a view to prevent him from further
   indulging into such offences. In a matter of detention, the
   law is clear that as far as subjective satisfaction is
   concerned, it should either be reflected in the detention
   order or in the affidavit justifying the detention order.
 G Once the Detaining Authority is subjectively satisfied
   about the various offences labelled against the detenue,
   habituality in continuing the same, difficult to control him
   under the normal circumstances, he is free to pass
   appropriate order under Section 3 of the 1986 Act by
 H fulfilling the conditions stated therein. There was no
    G. REDDEIAH v. GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA               459
               PRADESH & ANR.
infirmity either in the reasoning of the Detaining Authority A
or procedure followed by it. The detenue was afforded
adequate opportunity at every stage and there was no
violation of any of the safeguards. In view of the
enormous activities of the detenue violating various
provisions oflPC, the A.P. Act and the Rules, continuous B
and habituality in pursuing the same type of offences, ·
damaging the wealth of the nation and taking note of the
abundant factual details as available in the grounds of
detention and also of the fact that all the procedures and
statutory safeguards were fully complied with by the c
Detaining Authority, the reasoning of the Detaining
Authority as approved by the Government and upheld by
the High Court is accepted. [Para 13, 14] [470-H; 471-A-
H; 472-A-E]

    Rekha vs. State of Tamil Nadu (2011) 5 SCC 244 - held    D
inapplicable.
                     Case Law Reference:
  1975 (1) SCR 778            relied on         Para 7
                                                             E
  2003 (4) Suppl. SCR 618     relied on         Para 10
  1990 (1) SCR 209            relied on         Para 11
  1987 (1) SCR 221            relied on         Para 11
                                                             F
  (2011) s sec 244            held inapplicablePara 14
    CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal
No. 1761 of 2011.

     From the Judgment & Order dated 08.4.2011 of the High   G
Court of Judicature Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in Writ
Petition No .. 65 of 2011.

     ATM Ranga Ramanujan, Gouri Karuna Das Mohanti, Anu
.Gupta, Prakhar Sharma, Sanjeev Kumar Sharma, Rani
 Jethmalani for the Appellant.                               H
    460      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                [2011] 12 S.C.R.


A         R. Sundravardhan, C. Kannan, Ravi Shankar, G.N. Reddy
    for the Respondents.

          The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

          P.SATHASIVAM,J. 1. Leave granted.
B
         2. The appellant, who is the brother-in-law of R.
    Sreenivasulu-the detenue, has filed this appeal against the
    judgment and final order dated 08.04.2011 passed by the High
    Court of Judicature, Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in a writ of
c   Habeas Corpus being Writ Petition No. 65 of 2011 .whereby
    the High Court dismissed his petition holding that the order of
    detention of R. Sreenivasulu passed by the Collector and
    District Magistrate, Kadapa, Y.S.R. District, in Ref. No. 670/M/
    2010 dated 12.11.2010 is not illegal.
D         3. Brief Facts:

      _a. According to the prosecution, the detenue was found to
  be involved in felling, transporting, smuggling of red-sanders
  trees and committing theft of forest wealth in as many as eight
E times within a period of one year. The cases registered against
  him disclose his activities. They are:

          (i) OR No. 130/2009-10- dated 22.02.2010:

       On 22.02.2010, on receiving information at 06:00 a.m.,
F Forest Range Officer and Deputy Range Officer Rayachoty,
  alongwith other staff proceeded to Masineni Kanuma locality
  of Palakonda Reserved Forest in Saraswathipalli Beat and
  noticed 3 persons lifting and storing red-sanders wood and
  preparing to transport the same. On seeing the Forest officials,
G they ran away from the scene of offence and could not be
  apprehended. Later, they were identified and one among them
  was the detenue. Thereafter, the Forest officials seized 30 red-
  sanders logs weighing 844 kgs. worth Rs.45,576/-. An offence
  was registered against them vide P .O.R. No. 6 dated
H 22.02.2010 under Section 20(1)(c)(ii) of the A.P. Forest Act_,
    G. REDDEIAH v. GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA                      461
       PRADESH & ANR. [P. SATHASIVAM, J.]
1967 (hereinafter referred to as "the A. P. Act") for trespassing   A
in Reserved Forest, under Section 20(1 )(c)(iii) of the A.P. Act
for causing damage by willfully cutting trees and dragging the
same, under Section 20(1)(c)(vi) and (x) of the A.P. Act for
collection and removal of red-sanders timber and under Section
29(2)(b) of the A.P. Act read with Rule 3 of the A.P. Sandal        8
Wood and Red Sanders Transit Rules, 1969 (in short "the
Rules") for transportation of red-sanders timber without permit
and without any Government Transit Mark and for theft of red-
sanders timber from Reserved Forest under Section 378 of the
Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short "IPC") and for criminal           c
conspiracy under Section 120B IPC.

     (ii) OR No. 01/2010-11 dated 01.04.2010

     On 01.04.2010, on receiving information at 7.30 a.m., the
Deputy Range Officer, Forest Beat Officers and Assistant Beat       D
Officer proceeded to the localities in Gudukonda and Pathikona
and noticed the movement of the detenue and two others who
escaped from the scene of the offence and later the d_etenue
was identified and crime was registered against him vide
P.O.R. No. 16 dated 01.04.2010 under various sections of the        E
A.P. Act and the Rules and also under Sections 378 and 1208
IPC.

     (iii) OR No. 02/2010-11 dated 03.04.201 O

     On 02.04.2010, the Forest Range Officer, Rayachoty along       F
with other staff stopped a vehicle carrying 20 red- sanders logs.
The detenue along with two others escaped from the vehicle
but the Forest officials apprehended the driver of the vehicle
and a crime was registered vide P.O.R. No. 17 dated
03.04.2010 against theni for an offence under various sections      G
of the A.P. Act and the Rules and also under Sections 378 and
1208 IPC.

     (iv) OR No.13/2010-11 dated 11.05.2010 and PS Crime
     No. 40/10                                                      H
    462      SUPREME COURT REPORTS              [2011] 12 S.C.R.


A      On 08.05.201 O, on receiving a complaint regarding
  smuggling of red-sanders logs, while doing routine vehicle
  check, the Inspector of Police, LR. Palli along with other staff
  stopped two vans and caught hold of four persons and seized
  red-sanders logs from the above two vehicles and on the basis
B of their information a crime was registered by Galiveedu Police
  Station in Crime No. 40/2010 for an offence under various
  sections of the AP. Act and the Rules and also under Sections
  379 IPC against 14 accused persons in which detenue was
  shown as 12th accused.
c         (v) OR No. 18/2010-11 dated 23.05.2010

       On the intervening night of 22.05.2010, the Forest Officer,
  Rayachoty along with other staff caught-hold of detenue along
  with other persons and seized 32 red-sanders logs weighing
D 794 kgs. and a crime was registered vide P.O.R. No. 20 dated
  23.05.2010 against them under various sections of the A. P. Act
  and the Rules.

          (vi) FIR No. 46/10 dated 27.05.2010 and OR No. 20/2010-
          11 dated 30.05.2010
E
       On 27.05.2010, the Inspector of Police, Rayachoty Rural
  Circle and Sub-Inspector of Police, Veeraballi P.S. along with
  their staff noticed one lndica Car followed by a lorry from
  Ragimannudivanpalli. On seeing them, the occupants tried to
F run away and the police chased and caught-hold of two persons
  while one person escaped. The lorry was found loaded with 25
  red-sanders logs. On interrogation, they informed that the
  detenue was escorting them and he ran away from the scene.
  The police registered a case in FIR No. 46/10 dated
G 27.05.2010 under Section 379 IPC and Section 29A(1) of the
  AP. Act read with Rule 3 of the Rules. The Forest Range Officer,
  Rayachoty also booked a case vide POR No. 20/2010-11
  dated 30.05.2010.

H
    G. REDDEIAH v. GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA                   463
       PRADESH & ANR. [P. SATHASIVAM, J.]

    (vii) FIR No. 75/10 dated 03.10.2010 and OR No. 60/2010-      A
    11 dated 04.10.2010

     On 03.10.2010, the Inspector of Police, Rayachoty Rural
Circle and Sub-Inspector of Police, Veeraballi P.S. along with
forest officials proceeded to Teacher Narayana Reddy Mango        B
Garden located at Peddamadiga Palli Village, hamlet of
Vongimalla and found four persons removing red-sanders logs
from the bushes. On seeing them, three persons escaped and
the police could apprehend only one person who inforrrted that
the detenue was also involved in taking away the logs three       C
times in his vehicle. The police registered a case in Crime No.
75/10 under Section 379 IPC and Section 29 of the A.P. Act
read with Rule 3 of the Rules and the Forest Range Officer also
booked a case vide POR No. 60/2010-11 dated 04.10.2010.

     (viii} Crime No. 92/10                                       D

     On 09.10.2010, the Sub-Inspector of Galiveedu and
Veeraballi, C.I. LR. Palli along with staff and panchayatdars
while proceeding towards the ·torest found one Tata Sumo and
a Ford Ikon car carrying 36 red-sanders logs. When the            E
occupants tried to escape, the police caught hold of them. One
among them was the detenue. The police seized the vehicles
and registered Crime No. 92 of 2010 under Section 379 IPC
and Section 29 of the A.P. Act read with Rule 3 of the Rules.

     (b) Thereafter, on 10.11.2010, the detenue was released F
on bail and he was immediately arrested and order of detention
was served on 12.11.2010 by the Collector and District
Magistrate, Kadapa, Y.S.R. District under Sections 3(1) and 2
(a) and (b) of the Andhra Pradesh Prevention of Dangerous·
Activities of Boot Leggers, Dacoits, Drug Offenders, Goondas. G
Immoral Traffic Offenders and Land Grabbers Act, 1986 (in short
"the 1986 Acf') stating that the activities of the detenue are
dangerous to forest wealth and forest eco-system and are
prejudicial to the maintenance of public order.
                                                                H
    464      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                     [2011] 12 S.C.R.


A      (c) The General Administration (Law and Order II)
  Department of the Government of A.P., in G.O. Rt. No. 5657,
  dated 20.11.2010, approved the order of detention and he was
  sent to Cherlapalli Jail on 13.11.2010. Again on 22.12.2010,
  Government of A.P. confirmed the order of detention by
B directing to continue the detention for a period of 12 months
  from the date of detention i.e. from 13.11.2010.

       (d) In January, 2011, challenging the detention order
  passed by the Collector and District Magistrate, Kadapa, Y.S.R.
C District, dated 12.11.2010, the appellant herein - brother-in-law
  of the deten!Je, filed W.P. No. 65 of 20011 before the High
  Court for issuance of writ of Habeas Corpus. By impugned
  order dated 08.04.2011, the High Court dismissed the petition
  holding that the order of detention is not illegal. Aggrieved by
  the said order, the appellant has filed this appeal by way of
D special leave petition before this Court.

        4. Heard Mr. A.T.M. Rangaramanujam learned senior
    counsel for the appellant and Mr. R. Sundaravardan, learned
    senior counsel for the State.
E
           5. It is the definite stand of the State that its administration
    is not in a position to curb the illegal activities of the detenue
    under the normal procedure, who was habitually indulging in
    illicit trespass, cutting, dressing and transporting the red-
    sanders wood from the Reserved Forest owned by the State
F   causing irreparable loss to national wealth. The Detaining
    Authority, on going through all the materials and after holding
    that the said detenue is a 'goonda' under Section 2(g) of the
    1986 Act passed the order of detention.

G        6. Since the said detention was challenged by his brother-
    in-law before the High Court and the same has been negatived
    by the High Court, let us refer certain provisions of the 1986
    Act. Section 2(g) defines "goonda" which reads as under:-

          2(g) "goonda" means a person, who either by himself of
H
   G. REDDEIAH v. GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA                         465
      PRADESH & ANR. [P. SATHASIVAM, J.]
    as a member of or leader of a gang, habitually commits,           A
    or attempts to commit or abets the commission of offences
    punishable under Chapter XVI or Chapter XVII or Chapter
    XXll of the Indian Penal Code;"

Section 3 of the 1986 Act enables the Government to detain            B
certain persons whose activities are prejudicial to the
maintenance of public order. Section 3 reads as under:-

    "3. Power to make orders detaining certain persons:-
    The Government may, if satisfied with respect to any
    bootlegger: dacoit, drug-offender, goonda, immoral traffic C
    offender or land-grabber that with a view to preventing him
    from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance
    of public order, it is necessary so to do, make an order
    directing that such person be detained.
                                                                       D
    (2) If, having regard to the circumstances prevailing or likely
    to prevail in any area within the local limits of the jurisdiction
   .of a District Magistrate or a Commissioner of Police, the
   'Government is satisfied that it is necessary so to do, they
    may, by order in writing, direct that during such period as . E
    may be specified in the order, such District Magistrate or
    Commissioner of Police may also, if satisfied as provided
    in sub-Section (1), exercise the powers conferred by the
    said sub-section:

    Provided that the period specified in the order made by           F
    the Government under this sub-section shall not in the first
    instance, exceed three months, but the Government may,
    if satisfied as aforesaid that it is necessary so to do,
    amend such order to extend such period from time to time
    by any period not exceeding three months at any one time.         G
    (3) When any order is made under this Section by an
    officer mentioned in sub-section (2), he shall forthwith
    report the fact to the Government together with the grounds
    on which the order has been made and such other                   H
    466      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2011] 12 S.C.R.


A         particulars as in his opinion, have a bearing on the matter,
          and no such order shall remain in force for more than twelve
          days after the making thereof, unless, in the meantime, it
          has been approved by the Government."

B If the Government/Detaining Authority is able to satisfy that a
  person either by himself or in association with other members
  habitually commits or attempts or abets such commission of
  offence punishable under IPC, A.P. Act and the Rules subject
  to satisfying Section 3 of the 1986 Act, he can be detained in
  terms of the said Act.
c
          7. The essential concept of preventive detention is that the
  detention of a person is not to punish him for something he has
  done but to prevent him from doing it. Even, as early as in 1975,
  the Constitution Bench of this Court considered the procedures
D to be followed in view of Articles 19 and 21 of the Constitution.·
  In Haradhan Saha vs. State of West Bengal & Ors. (1975) 3
  SCC 198, the Constitution Bench of this Court, on going through
  the order of preventive detention under Maintenance of Internal
  Security Act, 1971 laid down various principles which are as
E follows:-

          "..... First; merely because a detenue is liable to be tried
          in a criminal court for the commission of a criminal offence
          or to be proceeded against for preventing him from
          committing offences dealt with in Chapter VIII of the Code
F         of Criminal Procedure would not by itself debar the
          Government from taking action for his detention under the
          Act.
          Second; the fact that the Police arrests a person and later
G         on enlarges him on bail and initiates steps to prosecute
          him under the Code of Criminal Procedure and even
          lodges a first information report may be no bar against the
          District Magistrate issuing an order under the preventive
          detention.
H
    G. REDDEIAH v. GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA                         467
       PRADE~H-& ANR. [P. SATHASIVAM, J.]

    Third; where the concerned person is actually in jail custody       A
    at the time when an order of detention is passed against
    him and is not likely to be released for a fair length of time,
    it may be possible to' contend that there could be no
    satisfaction on the part of the detaining authority as to the
    likelihood of such a person indulging in activities which           B
    would jeopardize the security of the State or the public
    order.

     Fourth; the mere circumstance that a detention order is
     passed during the pendency of the prosecution will not             C
     violate (sic) the order.

     Fifth; the order of detention is a precautionary measure. It
     is based on a reasonable prognosis of the future behaviour
     of a person based on his past conduct in the light of the
     surrounding circumstances."                          ·             D

In the light of the above principles, let us test the validity of the
detention order issued under the 1986 Act and as affirmed by
the High Court.         -

      8. In the earlier part of our order, we have culled out and       E
noted 8 cases in which the detenue-R. Sreenivasulu was
involved and was habitually committing forest offences,
particularly, felling, cutting and smuggling of red-sanders wood
causing loss to national wealth. Inasmuch as we have adverted
to the details regarding all the 8 cases commencing from                F
22.02.2010 ending with 09.10.2010 which is reflected in the
grounds of detention, there is no need to refer the same once
again. Mr. Rangaramanujam, learned senior .counsel for the
appellant has submitted that some of the cases have been
foisted and, according to him, the relevant details furnished in        G
the grounds of detention such as the date of occurrence,
commission of various offences both under the AP. Act and
the Rules and IPC, cannot be construed that his activities are
habitual or would not affect the national forest wealth. We are
unable to accept the said contention. A reading of the grounds          H
    468       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2011) 12 S.C.R.


A of detention clearly indicate that the detenue had been indulging
  in various activities in felling and smuggling red-sanders and
  he was habitually committing the same and was unmindful of
  wastage of national forest wealth and public order. It also shows
  that it was not a solitary or stray incident but continuously
B maintaining his activities commencing from 22.02.2010 till
  09.10.2010 in destroying the forest wealth. It clearly shows that
  he is habitually committing these offences. On going through
  all the details relating to various offences, incidents and
  activities, we are satisfied that the conclusion of Detaining
c Authority that by-invocation of normal procedure, the activities
  of the detenue cannot be controlled is acceptable. We also hold
  that Detaining Authority is well within its powers in passing the ·
  impugned order of detention. Further, we are also in agreement
  with the reasoning of the High Court which, by a detailed
D judgment, upheld the order of detention.

       9. Mr. Rangaramanujam submitted that even though the
  detenue was arrested on 09.10.2010 and was released on bail
  on 10.11.2010, the detention orde.r was passed on 12.11.2010, -
  the aspect that the detenue was in custody till 10.11.2010 was
E neither specifically adverted to and considered in the detention
  order nor the sponsoring authority placed any material
  regarding the same, hence, the ultimate detention order passed
  on 12.11.2010 cannot be sustained. Before considering his
  objection, it is useful to refer the following decision and
F principles laid down therein.       ·

      10. The incident relating to procedure to be adopted in
  case the detenue is already in custody has been dealt in several
  cases. In Union of India vs. Paul Manickam and Another
G (2003) 8 SCC 342, this Court, has held as under:-
          "14 ..... Where detention orders are passed in relation to
          persons who are already in jail under some other laws, the
          detaining authorities should apply their mind and show their
          awareness in this regard in the grounds of detention, the
H         chances of release of such persons on bail. The necessity
G. REDDEIAH v. GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA                          469
   PRADESH & ANR. [P. SATHASIVAM, J.]
of keeping such persons in detention under the preventive            A
detention laws has to be clearly indicated. Subsisting
custody of the detenue by itself does not invalidate an
order of his preventive detention, and the decision in this
regard must depend on the facts of the particular case.
Preventive detention being necessary to prevent the                  s
detenue from acting in any manner prejudicial to the
security of the State or to the maintenance of public order
or economic stability etc. ordinarily, it is not needed when
the detenue is already in custody. The detaining authority
must show its awareness to the fact of subsisting custody            c
of the detenue and take that factor into account while
making the order. If the detaining authority is reasonably
satisfied with cogent materials that there is likelihood of
his release and in view of his antecedent activities which
are proximate in point of time, he must be detained in
                                                                     0
order to prevent him from indulging in such prejudicial
activities, the detention order can be validly made. Where
the detention order in respect of a person already in
custody does not indicate that the detenue was likely to
be released on bail, the order would be vitiated. The point          E
was gone into detail in Kamarunnissa v. Union of India.
The principles were set out as follows: even in the case of
a person in custody, a detention order can be validly
passed: (1) if the authority passing the order is aware of
the fact that he is actually in custody; (2) if he has a reason
to believe on the basis of reliable material placed before           F
him (a) that there is a real possibility of his release on bail,
and (b) that on being released, he would in all probability
indulge in prejudicial activities; and (3) if it is felt essential
to detain him to prevent him from so doing. If an order is
passed after recording satisfaction in that regard, the order        G
would be valid. In the case at hand the order of detention
and grounds of detention show an awareness of custody
and/or a possibility of release on bail."

11. It is clear that if the Detaining Authority was aware of         H
    470     SUPREME COURT REPORTS                [2011] 12 S.C.R.


A the relevant fact, namely, that he was under custody from
  09.10.2010 and he would be released or likely to be released
  or as in this case released on 10.11.2010 and if an order is
  passed after due satisfaction in that rega'rd, undoubtedly, the
  order would be valid. Before answering this point, Mr. R.
B Sundaravardan, learned senior counsel for the State has
  brought to our notice that the said objection was neither raised
  before the Advisory Board nor in the representation to the
  Government and was not mentioned in the grounds of challenge
  and argued before the High Court. He also pointed out that even
c before this Court, this ground was not raised in the special leave
  petition. It is not in dispute that such objection was not raised
  anywhere except during the course of argument. No doubt,
  learned senior counsel for the ~ppellant by drawing our attention
  to Crl.M.P. No. 11504 of 2011 which was filed for permission
  to file additional documents submitted that the same may be
0
  considered and in the absence of such satisfaction by the
  Detaining Authority as reflected in the detention order, the
  same is liable to be quashed. Nori-consideration of bail order
  would amount to non-application of mind. ( vide M.
E Ahamedkutfy vs. Union of India & Another. (1990) 2 SCC 1
  and Anant Sakharam Raut vs. State of Maharashtra and Anr.
  (1986) 4 sec 771].

       12. As pointed out above, the said objection was not raised
  anywhere. It is also not in dispute that the detenue was given
F adequate opportunity of hearing before the Advisory Board and
  all his grievances were addressed to by the Board and
  submitted its report. The Government, on going through the
  entire materials including the report of the Advisory Board as
  well as the representation of the detenue, considering the
G gravity of the offence alleged against him and his habituality,
  confirmed the order of detention.

         13. The grounds of detention running into 60 pages and
    the order of detention to 5 pages clearly demonstrate various
    details about the involvement of the detenue violating the
H
    G. REDDEIAH v. GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA                      471
       PRADESH & ANR. [P. SATHASIVAM, J.]
 ·1rovisions of IPC, A.P. Act and the Rules. The details furnished A
   1 the grounds of detention clearly show the application of mind
 ·>n the part of the Detaining Authority. It is not the case of the
 ~etenue or the appellant that the required relevant and relied
 "ln materials have not been furnished which prevented him from
•naking effective representation to the Government. The B
lfetailed report of the Inspector of Police and Sponsoring
 "-\uthority clearly show that the detenue was a master mind in
  Hganising the felling of red-sanders trees owned by the
  3overnment and also providing vehicles for illegally transporting
=he red-sanders wood, hiring of labourers from the fringe forest c
-1illages and responsible for destruction of valuable
  ~overnmental property. It also shows that it was he who
  )perated gang for destruction of the national wealth causing
  jeforestation leading to ecological imbalance affecting the
  ::ommunity as a whole. The grounds of detention also show that D
  .he Detaining Authority, after scrutinising all the details including
  Jarious orders of arrest and release, bail on various dates and
  1oting that he is habitually indulging in trespass in forest area,
   llicit cutting, felling, smuggling and transporting red-sanders
lfrom the reserved forest owned by the State, arrived at a
  jefinite conclusion that the provisions of normal law were not E
11$Ufficient in ordinary course to deal firmly because of his
!habitual nature and after satisfying all aspects including the fact
~hat the detenue was in jail from 09.10.2010 to 10.11.2010 and
~he factum of release from the jail in 4 criminal cases, passed
·an order of detention with a view to prevent him from further F
1indulging into such offences. In a matter of detention, the law
•is clear that as far as subjective satisfaction is concerned, it
·should either be reflected in the detention order or in the affidavit
1justifying the detention order. Once the Detaining Authority is
 subjectively satisfied about the various offences labelled G
 against the detenue, habituality in continuing the same, difficult
 to control him under the normal circumstances, he is free to
 pass appropriate order under Section 3 of the 1986 Act by
 fulfilling the conditions· stated therein. We have already
 concluded that there is no infirmity either in the reasonings of H
   472      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2011] 12 S.C.R.


A the Detaining Authority or procedure followed by it. We are also
  satisfied that the detenue was afforded adequate opportunity
  at every stage and there is no violation of any of the safeguards.
  In these circumstances, we reject the contention raised by
  learned senior counsel for the appellant.
B
        14. Though an attempt was made to nullify the order of
  detention by drawing our attention to the latest decision of this
  Court reported in Rekha vs. State of Tamil Nadu (2011) 5
  sec 244, on going through the factual position and orders
  therein and in view of enormous activities of the detenue
C violating various provisions of IPC, the A.P. Act and the Rules,
  continuous and habituality in pursuing the same type of
  offences, damaging the wealth of the na~on and taking note of
  the abundant factual details as available in the grounds of
  detention and also of the fact that all the procedures and
D statutory safeguards have been fully complied with by the
  Detaining Authority, we are of the view that the said decision
  is not applicable to the case on hand. On the other hand, we
  fully agree with the reasoning of the Detaining Authority as
  approved by the Government and upheld by the High Court.
E
        15. In the light of the above discussion, we find no merit in
  the appeal, consequently, the same is dismissed.

    D.G.                                       Appeal dismissed.