IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Dated: 01/07/2005
Coram
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice P. SATHASIVAM
and
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice AR. RAMALINGAM
HCP. No. 282 of 2005
J. Chithra,
W/o. Janarthanan,
4/19, Ranganathapuram 2nd Street,
Rayapuram Extension, Tiruppur,
Coimbatore District. .. Petitioner.
-Vs-
1. The District Magistrate and
District Collector, Coimbatore.
2. The State of Tamil Nadu,
represented by its Secretary to Government,
Prohibition and Excise Department,
Fort St. George, Chennai-9. .. Respondents.
Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to
issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus, calling for records in connection with the
order of detention passed by first respondent made in Crl.M.P.No.
20/G/2004/E4, dated 26-10-2004 and produce the detenu viz., Janarthanan @
Jony, son of Baladhandapani, who is now detained in Central Prison,
Coimbatore, before this Court and set him at liberty.
!For petitioner:- Mr. C. Prakasam.
^For respondents:- Mr. Abudukumar Rajarathinam,
Govt., Advocate (Criminal Side).
:ORDER
(Order of Court was made by P. Sathasivam, J.,)
The petitioner herein is the wife of the detenu by name Janarthanan @
Jony. He was detained as “Goonda” by the impugned order dated 26-10-2004
under Section 3(2) of Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of
Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Forest Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic
Offenders and Slum Grabbers Act, 1982 ( Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982).
2. The grounds on which the detention order has been made are as
follows:
Thiru Janarthanan @ Jony is running a Motor Vehicle Driving school in the name
of Jony Driving School at Tiruppur. He has been authorised by M/s. Maheswari
Agencies, authorised dealer of Yamaha Motor Cycle to get the registration, for
the new motor vehicles sold by them to their customers from the Office of the
Regional Transport Officer, Tiruppur. On 02-05-2001 Thiru Janarthanan @ Jony,
aged 37 years, S/o Thiru Baladhandapani, No.4/19, Ranganathapuram, IInd
Street, Rayapuram Extension, Tiruppur, Coimbatore District, produced before
the Regional Transport Officer, Tiruppur a Light Motor Vehicle of TATA make
model 2001 for registration in the name of M/s. Hycounts Corporation, No.6-A,
Ranganathapuram Extension, 2nd Street, Kongu Main Road, Tiruppur along with an
application and connected documents including the letter No.
29620/Tr.-VI/2001-1 Home (Transport-VI) Department, Government of Tamilnadu,
Chennai dated 03-04-2001 (Computer Code No. 24363). The said letter was for
allotment order of Fancy registration number 6000 in TN 39 Y series to the
above said vehicle. On the strength of that Government letter, the said
vehicle was assigned with the registration number TN 39 Y 6000. But on
verification at a later date, the said Government letter was found to be a
forged one. Further, there was an endorsement at page-12 of registration
document as if a sum of Rs.6000/- was paid in the Regional Transport Officer’s
Office, Tiruppur in S.No. 11139 001A on 23-04-2001
towards the prescribed fee for advance registration for Fancy number. On
verification, it was also found to be forged, as the said receipt S.No. 11139
001A dated 23-04-2001 was originally relating to the payment of a sum of
Rs.15/- at the said office. Thus, Thiru Janarthanan @ Jony has forged the
said endorsement by creating the said false document used them as genuine and
thereupon cheated the Government of Tamilnadu through the Office of the
Regional Transport Officer, Tiruppur to a value of Rs.6,000/-. Hence, the
Regional Transport Officer, Tiruppur filed a complaint before the
Superintendent of Police, Coimbatore District in his letter Confdl./4/RTO/TPR
dated 14-10-2004. On the orders of the Superintendent of Police, Coimbatore
District, the Inspector of police, Central Crime Branch, Tiruppur registered a
case in CCB Cr.No. 26/2004 U/s 467, 468, 471 and 420 IPC and sent the FIR
along with the original complaint to the Judicial Magistrate No.1, Tiruppur
and copies of them to the higher officers concerned.
3. After registering the case, the inspector of Police, Central Crime
Branch, Tiruppur took up investigation. He examined the complainant and other
necessary witnesses. During the course of investigation, it was known that
the above Government letter was issued for the allotment of fancy number TN 21
P 0009 to Thiru V.V. Chalapathy of Kanchepuram District. The Inspector of
Police, Central Crime Branch, Tiruppur arrested the accused Thiru Janarthanan
@ Jony on 14-10-2004 at 10-30 PM in front of his house at Ranganathapuram 2nd
Street, Rayapuram Extension, Tiruppur and recorded his voluntary confessional
statement in the presence of two witnesses 1) Murugesh 2) P. Kudiarasu and
produced him before the Judicial Magistrate No.1, Tiruppur on 15-10-2004. The
accused was remanded to Judicial custody upto 29-10-2004 and lodged at Central
Prison, Coimbatore.
4. The detaining authority, namely, the District Collector,
Coimbatore, after satisfying himself that the said Janarthanan @ Jony is
habitually committing crimes and also acting in a manner prejudicial to the
maintenance of public order and as such he is a ” Goonda” as contemplated
under Section 2 (f) of Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982, arrived at a conclusion that
by committing the above said grave offences, the said Janarthanan @ Jony
created fear, panic and a feeling of insecurity in the minds of the public of
that area and thereby acted in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of
public order. He also concluded that the offence committed by him is
punishable under Chapter XVII of the Indian Penal Code. After satisfying that
the materials placed before him that the said Janarthanan @ Jony is a “Goonda”
and that there is a compelling necessity to detain him in order to prevent him
from indulging in such acts which are prejudicial to the maintenance of public
order, he was detained under the provisions of Act 14 of 1982.
5. On earlier occasion, the said detention order was challenged
through one B. Sivakumar, brother of the detenu in H.C.P. No. 1485/2004.
This Court, by order dated 16-2-2005, after finding that no valid ground to
interfere with the said order of detention, dismissed the said petition.
However, claiming that certain valid points invalidating the detention order
were neither taken nor urged nor any finding rendered in respect of the same,
the petitioner, wife of the detenu has filed the present petition for quashing
of the very same order.
6. Heard Mr. B. Kumar, learned senior counsel for the petitioner
and Mr. Abudukumar Rajarathinam, learned Government Advocate, for
respondents.
7. After taking us through the grounds of detention and all other
connected materials, Mr. B. Kumar, learned senior counsel for the
petitioner, has raised the following contentions:
i) There is no public order warranting the detenu to be described as “Goonda”
under Act 14/1982;
ii) Even according to the respondents, the alleged occurrence, namely, forgery
of certain Government documents took place on 23-4-2001, whereas the case was
registered only on 14-10-2004, after a delay of more than 3 years; hence the
detention order is liable to be quashed on the ground of delay;
iii) There is no proximity in this case and in the absence of any adequate
materials, the detention order is liable to be quashed;
iv) There was no proper intimation to the petitioner.
Learned Government Advocate refuted all the charges by placing necessary
materials.
8. Let us consider the contentions raised by learned senior counsel
for petitioner one by one. As regards the first contention relating to no
public order involved and invoking of Act 14 of 1982 is not warranted, though
detention order was passed describing the detenu as Goonda based on the
complaint of the Regional Transport Officer, Tiruppur, dated 14-10-2004, which
was registered a case in CCB Crime No. 26/2004 for offences under sections
467, 468, 471 and 420 I.P.C., the grounds of detention make it clear that the
detenu had involved in committing fraud and forging certain documents and
cheating the Office of the Regional Transport Officer at Tiruppur on various
dates between 12-10-2001 and 7-06-2004. The adverse case in Crime No.
25/2004 for offences under Sections 120(B), 468, 471 and 4 20 IPC relates to
the said period namely 12-10-2001 to 7-10-2004. It further shows that the
detenu came to adverse notice on 34 instances. It also shows that Mr. F.S.
Rodrigo, the Regional Transport Officer, Tiruppur and the complainant in Crime
No. 25/2004 of District Crime Branch, Coimbatore has stated in his further
statement, recorded by the Inspector of Police, Karumathampatty Police
Station, that the verification of his office records as on 15-10-2004 would
make out a total fraud of Rs.60 lakhs. Copy of his statement has been
furnished in pages 21 to 33 of the booklet issued to the detenu. The grounds
of detention also show that though the offence complained of in the ground
case dates back to 02-05-2001, it came to the knowledge of the complainant
(Regional Transport Officer, Tiruppur only on detect of this complaint and to
the sponsoring authority only on the date of FIR, registered in Tiruppur
Central Crime Branch Crime No.26/2004.
9. The grounds of detention also show that the letter of the
Government in No. 29620/Tr.-VI/2001-1 Home (Transport-VI) Department dated
03-04-2001 with Computer Code No. 24363 was forged one. As rightly pointed
by the learned Government Advocate, the degree of evidence for passing a
detention order need not be so much clinching against the detenu as required
in the trial of the criminal case against him before the Criminal Court. Page
169 of the booklet supplied to the detenu shows that an amount of Rs.15/- had
been remitted into the Office of the Regional Transport Officer, Tiruppur as
per S. No. 11139-001A dated 23-04-2001, but the detenu has fabricated a
false document for Rs.6,000/- into the Office of the Regional Transport
Officer, Tiruppur as per the same receipt number with the same date and time.
It was also available in the booklet in page 173. It is not in dispute that
creation of false documents or a portion of the false documents amounts to an
offence of forgery and those copies of documents are available in pages 173
and 175 of the booklet. The detaining authority has considered and discussed
at length all the documents placed before him by the sponsoring authority and
was satisfied that the gross violation of the law by cheating and fabricating
the Government documents and serious offences committed by the detenu were
sufficient to arrive at a conclusion that his activities were prejudicial to
the maintenance of public order and public peace. We are also satisfied that
the detaining authority was very well aware of the relevant fact that the
detenu is habitually committing “crimes” and also acting in a manner
prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. The detaining authority was
also satisfied that by forging and cheating the Government documents relating
to various persons who intended to acquire or purchase new vehicles, created
fear, panic and feeling of insecurity in their minds in that area (Tiru ppur),
thereby acted in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. The
detaining authority has also satisfied that the offences committed by the
detenu are punishable under Chapter XVII of Indian Penal Code. Considering
the details furnished in Crime No. 25/2004 which related to the period
between 12-10-2001 and 07-06-2004 pertaining to cheating several persons and
the complaint dated 14-10-2004 in the ground case, as well as the prejudicial
activities indulged by him and there is likelihood of indulging in such
activities in future as well, we are satisfied that the detaining authority is
fully justified and well within his power in detaining the detenu as “Goonda”
under Act 14 of 1982. In the light of chain of events and details referred to
in the grounds of detention, it cannot be claimed that there is no proximity
to the initial occurrence which had taken place on 23-4-2001. The contrary
contention is liable to be rejected.
10. Though an argument was advanced that there was delay in passing
the detention order, for the discussion relating to the first contention and
in view of chain of events stated in the adverse case Crime No. 25/2004 as
well as ground case Crime No. 26/2004 both on the file of District Crime
Branch, Coimbatore District, and considering the number of persons involved,
forgery of several documents, that too Government receipts in respect of
several registration books, we are satisfied that there is no delay in passing
the order of detention. As rightly pointed out by the learned Government
Advocate that it is not a case of solitary instance, but it refers to forging
several documents, manipulating and cheating records of the Regional Transport
Officer, Tirupur on various dates, making the intending purchasers to register
34 new motor vehicles with new registration number without actually remitting
registration fees and life tax and caused wrongful loss to the Government of
Tamil Nadu, besides creating fear and panic among the intending purchasers.
In such circumstances, particularly taking note of the volume and nature of
work involved, we are unable to accept the contention that there is a delay in
passing the detention order. On the other hand, considering the chain of
instances, we hold that there is no delay. The contrary contention is liable
to be rejected.
11. Though an argument was advanced that there was no material
available for detaining the detenu as “Goonda”, as discussed above, the
adverse case Crime No.25/2004 and ground case Crime No. 26/2004 on the file
of District Crime Branch, Coimbatore and all the details furnished in the
grounds of detention amply proove that the detaining authority was possessed
with required materials for clamping the detenu as “Goonda”. For the same
reasons, as mentioned above, the said contention is also liable to be
rejected. Though Mr. B. Kumar has relied on certain decisions, in the light
of the abundant factual details available in the grounds of detention and on
going through the same, we are of the view that they are not helpful to the
case on hand.
12. Finally, an argument was advanced that no proper intimation
relating to clamping of detention was informed to the family member of the
detenu, in the counter affidavit filed by the District Magistrate and
Collector, Coimbatore, first respondent herein, particularly in para 14, it is
specifically stated that the fact of passin of the detention order against
Janarthanan alias Jony in Crl.M.P.No. 20/G/2004/E4 and his lodging in the
Central Prison, Coimbatore were informed to the petitioner, wife of the detenu
in his letter dated 26-10-2004 and the same was served on her on 27-10-2004 in
the presence of two witnesses, namely, (1) C. Vajravelu, Village
Administrative Officer and (2) M. Kuppusamy, Village Administrative Assistant
of Thottipalayam village. In view of the above categorical information, the
said contention is also liable to be rejected.
13. In the light of the above discussion and in view of the abundant
materials in the grounds of detention, we are satisfied that the detaining
authority was fully justified in detaining the detenu as “Goonda” under Act 14
of 1982. We are also satisfied that the detaining authority has considered
all the relevant materials and possessed with the details regarding
habituality of the detenu in committing crimes, acting in a manner prejudicial
to the maintenance of public order, creating fear and panic and a feeling of
insecurity in the minds of public in the area (Tiruppur), and rightly passed
the impugned order of detention. We are in agreement with his conclusion.
There is no valid ground for interference. Hence, the Habeas Corpus Petition
fails and the same is dismissed.
R.B.
Index:- Yes
Internet:- Yes.
To:-
1. The District Magistrate and
District Collector, Coimbatore.
2. The State of Tamil Nadu,
represented by its Secretary to Government,
Prohibition and Excise Department,
Fort St. George, Chennai-9.
3. The Superintendent, Central Prison, Chennai.
4. The Joint Secretary to Govt., Public (Law and Order)
Fort St. George, Chennai-9.
5. The Public Prosecutor, High Court,
Madras.