Non-Production Of Case Property And Missing Link Evidence In Seizure Cases Vitiates Prosecution: Himachal Pradesh High Court Employees Compensation Act | Death Due To Cardiac Arrest During Employment Is An 'Accident' Arising Out Of Stress And Strain Of Duty: J&K High Court Transfer Of Proceedings | Courts Must Issue Fresh Notice To Parties Even If They Had Appeared Before The Transferor Court: Kerala High Court Sets Aside Ex-Parte Award Section 80P(4) IT Act Does Not Deny Deduction To Regional Rural Banks As They Retain The 'Deemed Co-operative Society' Status Under Section 22 RRB Act: Madras High Court Property Purchased In Name Of Child For Family Benefit Is Not A 'Benami Transaction' Under Section 2(9) Of The 1988 Act: Madhya Pradesh High Court Person Without Caveatable Interest Cannot Challenge Will Or Seek Revocation Of Probate: Madras High Court Divorce | Cruelty Must Be Assessed By Cumulative Effect Of Matrimonial Conduct Rather Than Isolated Incidents: Orissa High Court Merely Labeling Insurance Policy As Comprehensive Does Not Create Unlimited Liability: MP High Court Order VII Rule 11 CPC | Plaint Must Be Rejected If Limitation Bar Is Apparent From Face Of Pleadings: Patna High Court Limitation Act | 'Sufficient Cause' Cannot Be Used To Revive Stale Or Dead Claims By State: Orissa High Court Quashes Order Condoning 53-Year Delay Employee Cannot Remain Dormant Like Rip Van Winkle & Awaken At Convenience: Punjab & Haryana High Court Dismisses Stale Service Plea With ₹25K Cost Section 29 NDPS Act | Mere Allegation Of 'Cooperation' Without Specific Overt Acts Cannot Sustain Charge Of Conspiracy: Rajasthan High Court Forest Land Status Does Not Extinguish Private Civil Title: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Decree For Possession Once Admitted In Evidence, Document Cannot Be De-Marked On Grounds Of Insufficiency Of Stamp Duty: Telangana High Court Section 190 BNSS | Mere Presence In Unlawful Assembly With Active Intent Renders Member Vicariously Liable For Homicidal Act: Punjab & Haryana High Court Contributory Negligence Under Motor Vehicles Act Cannot Be Inferred Without Cogent Evidence: Telangana High Court Enhances Compensation Motor Vehicles Act | Section 164 Compensation Of Rs. 5 Lakhs Applicable Even To Pending Claims Arising Prior To 2019 Amendment: Punjab & Haryana High Court Consumer Protection Act | Builder Liable To Pay Interest For Delayed Possession Despite Force Majeure Plea If Agreement Executed Post-Outbreak: State Commission

Telangana High Court Sets Aside Detention of Alleged ‘Sexual Offender’ Under PD Act, Emphasizing Distinction Between ‘Public Order’ and ‘Law and Order’”

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant ruling, the Telangana High Court, on November 20, 2023, set aside the detention of Md. Nizamoddin @ Viju @ Nijju, who was detained under the Telangana Prevention of Dangerous Activities Act, 1986, as a ‘Sexual Offender’. The Bench comprising Hon’ble Sri Justice K. Lakshman and Hon’ble Smt. Justice K. Sujana delivered the judgment in Writ Petition No. 29522 of 2023.

Md. Nizamoddin was detained following allegations of repeatedly sexually assaulting a minor girl, leading to her pregnancy. The detention order was issued under Section 3(2) of the said Act, terming him a ‘Sexual Offender’. The petitioner challenged the detention order, arguing that it was issued without proper subjective satisfaction and consideration of material, contending that the act was against an individual and pertained only to a ‘law and order’ problem, not affecting ‘public order’.

The Court, In its detailed judgment, emphasized the crucial distinction between ‘public order’ and ‘law and order’. Citing the case of Arun Ghosh v. State of West Bengal, the Court observed, “The question to ask is: Does it lead to disturbance of the current of 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?”

The Court noted that the alleged offense by the detenu occurred within the confines of a house and did not occur in a public place. There was no evidence of the detenu engaging in acts that habitually disturbed public order. The Court held that the detaining authority failed to distinguish between ‘law and order’ and ‘public order’, which led to the conclusion that the detention order was not in accordance with the law.

The judgment also granted liberty to the prosecution and the detenu to prove and disprove the allegations, respectively, in a trial court. The trial court was instructed to make decisions based on the evidence without being influenced by the observations of the High Court.

 

 Date of Decision: 20 November 2023

 SHAHIK PARVEEN  VS THE STATE OF TELANGANA 

Latest Legal News