IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 24.1.2008 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.D.DINAKARAN AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.R.SHIVA KUMAR H.C.P.No.1770 of 2007 Anandaraj @ Kattupuchi .. Petitioner Vs. 1. State of Tamil Nadu rep. by its Secretary to Government Prohibition & Excise Department Fort St.George Chennai-9. 2. The Commissioner of Police Greater Chennai Egmore, Chennai 600 008. .. Respondents ----- Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue Habeas Corpus as stated therein. ----- For Petitioner : Mr.D.Nandagopal For Respondents : Mr.N.R.Elango Addl. Public Prosecutor ----- O R D E R
(Made by P.D.DINAKARAN,J.)
The second respondent herein clamped an order of detention as against the petitioner herein, as the said authority arrived at the subjective satisfaction that the petitioner is a Goonda and has to be detained under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Forest Officers, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders, Sand Offenders, Slum Grabbers and Video Pirates Act, 1982 (Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982).
2.1. The order of detention dated 29.8.2007 came to be passed by the second respondent on the basis of the ground case in Crime No.676 of 2007 on the file of S6, Shankar Nagar Police Station for the offence punishable under Sections 341, 336, 427, 506(2) read with 397, IPC, complaint of which was given by one Karnan. On 17.7.2007, at about 7.00 pm, when the complainant was proceeding near M/s. Forward Leather Company, the detenu wronguflly restrained him at the point of knife and asked to hand over the money with him. Fearing danger, the complainant gave Rs.110/- which he had in his pocket. On noticing the gold chain in the neck of the complainant, the detenu asked to hand over the same. When the complainant told that it is a covering chain, the detenu snatched the same and proceeded towards Atham Nagar. The complainant raised hue and cry. Immediately, he public came for his rescue and to apprehend the detenu. On seeing the public, the detenu pick up cool drink bottles and stones and pelted the same against them, which fell on the road side, broken into pieces and scattered on the road side. Due to the atrocious activities of the detenu, the public ran for safer places fearing danger to their lives, resulting in traffic dislocation.
2.2. Apart from the above, the detaining authority also took note of two adverse cases pending against the detenu, viz., Crime Nos.593/2007 and 670/2007 on the file of Shankar Nagar Police Station for the offence under Section 457 and 380, IPC.
2.3. The detaining authority, having satisfied that the detenu is indulging in activities which are prejudicial to maintenance of public order, passed the impugned order.
3. Challenging the said detention, the detenu has come forward with the present Habeas Corpus Petition seeking a writ of habeas corpus to call for the records relating to the detention order in C.No.361/BDFGISSV/2007, dated 29.8.2007 passed by the second respondent herein, to quash the same and to direct the respondent to produce him, now detained in Central Prison, Chennai and to set him at liberty.
4. The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner assailing the order of detention is that while all the adverse cases referred to in the grounds of detention relate to the offence punishable under Section 457 and 380 IPC, the solitary instance mentioned in the ground case, which relate to the offence punishable under Sections
341, 336, 427 and 506(2), IPC is not relevant for sustaining
the order of detention. The learned counsel, in support of the said plea, relied upon the decision of the Apex Court in DARPAN KUMAR SHARMA alias DHARBAN KUMAR SHARMA v. STATE OF TAMIL NADU [(2003) 1 CRIMES 446].
5. We have heard learned Additional Public Prosecutor on the above said point.
6. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner, it is evident that the adverse cases mentioned in the grounds of detention do not relate to any law and order problem. But, the offence said to have been committed by the detenu as per the ground case attracts the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982.
7.1. In DARPAN KUMAR SHARMA alias DHARBAN KUMAR SHARMA v. STATE OF TAMIL NADU [(2003) 1 CRIMES 446], cited supra, whereunder the order of detention was based on the solitary instance of robbery, the Apex Court held as follows:-
“… Though in the grounds of detention the detaining authority had stated that by committing this offence in public the detenu created a sense of alarm, scare and a feeling of insecurity in the minds of the public of the area and thereby acted in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order which affected the even tempo of life of the community, but citation of these words in the order of detention is more in the nature of a ritual rather than with any significance to the content of the matter. Thus, a solitary instance of robbery as mentioned in the grounds of detention is not relevant for sustaining the order of detention for the purpose of preventing the petitioner from acting in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order.”
7.2. That apart, the above ratio laid down by the Apex Court was followed by a Division Bench of this Court, in which one of us (P.D.DINAKARAN, J.) was a party, in MALA v. THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, PROHIBITION AND EXCISE DEPARTMENT, GOVT. OF TAMIL NADU, CHENNAI, [(2004) M.L.J. (Crl.) 306].
8. Admittedly, in the instant case, the adverse cases relate to the offence of theft punishable under Sections 457 and 380, IPC and the ground case relates to the offence of robbery punishable under Sections 341, 336, 392 and 506(2), IPC and hence, we are of the opinion that the ratio laid down in DARPAN KUMAR SHARMA’s case, cited supra, squarely applies to the present case on hand, which is also not disputed by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor.
9. Applying the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in Darpan Kumar Sharma’s case, cited supra, we are inclined to set aside the order of detention, Accordingly, the order of detention is set aside and the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed. The detenu is directed to be released forthwith, unless he is required in any other case.
kpl
To
1. The Secretary to Government
Home, Prohibition and Excise Department
Fort St.George, Chennai 9.
2. The Commissioner of Police
Greater Chennai, Egmore, Chennai-8.
3. The Superintendent of Central Prison
Central Prison, Chennai.
4. The Public Prosecutor
High Court,
Madras.