Swathi v. The Secretary to Government Prohibition and Excise Department Secretariat
Case at a glance
Outcome
Allowed
2007 is setaside and the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed
Provisions considered
- Constitution of India art. 226
- Tamil Nadu Act
- Indian Penal Code, 1860 ss. 336, 341, 379, 392, 506(ii)
Key paragraphs
- Para 88. Admittedly, in the instant case, the adverse cases relate tothe offence of theft punishable under Section 379, IPC and the groundcase relates to the offence of robbery punishable under Section 392IPC and hence, we are of the opinion that the ratio laid down inDARPAN…
- Para 99. Applying the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in Darpan KumarSharma's case, cited supra, we are inclined to set aside the order ofdetention, Accordingly, the order of detention dated 3.7.2007 is setaside and the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed. The detenu Deena @Dinesh…
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 5.12.2007CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.D.DINAKARAN ANDTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.REGUPATHIHabeas Corpus Petition No.1353 of 2007 Swathi.. PetitionerVs1. The Secretary to Government Prohibition and Excise Department Secretariat, Chennai-600 009.
The Commissioner of Police Greater Chennai... Respondents-----Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India forissue of Writ of Habeas Corpus calling for the records setting asidethe detention order passed by the Second Respondent BDFGISSV.NO.288/07dated 03.07.2007 and directing the second respondent to produce thebody of petitioner's husband viz., Dinesh @ Dhinesh kumar @ Arun @Arun Kumar S/O. Kaliyaperumal @ Sivakumar now confined in CentralPrison, Puzhal, Chennai. For Petitioner : Mr.P.MurugesanFor Respondents: Mr.P.Kumaresan Addl. Public ProsecutorO R D E R(Order of the Court was made by P.D.DINAKARAN,J.)The second respondent herein clamped an order of detention asagainst the detenu – Dhina @ Dhineshkumar @ Arun @ Arunkumar, son of Kaliyaperumal @ Sivakumar, as the said authority arrived at thesubjective satisfaction that the said detenu is a Goonda and he has tobe detained under Section 3(1) of the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Forest Officers, https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders, Sand Offenders, Slum Grabbers and Video Pirates Act, 1982 (Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982).2.
Challenging the abovesaid detention, the wife of the detenuhas come forward with the present Habeas Corpus Petition seeking awrit of habeas corpus to call for the records pertaining to thedetention order passed against the detenu by the second respondent in Memo No.288/BDFGISSV/ 2007, dated 3.7.2007, set aside the same and todirect the respondents to produce the body of the detenu, now detainedat Central Prison, Chennai before this Court and to set him at liberty.3.1. The order of detention dated 3.7.2007 was passed on the basisof ground case in Crime No.562 of 2007 for alleged commission ofoffences under Sections 341, 336, 392 and 506(ii) IPC, complaint ofwhich was lodged by one Sugumar. According to the complainant, on19.6.2007, while he was proceeding to purchase simcard for his cellphone at the junction of West MGR Nagar and RK Nagar, the detenuherein and his associate Settu @ Gunasekaran came to the junction in amotor cycle.
Suddenly, Settu @ Gunasekaran snatched the cell phone ofthe complainant. The detenu, who was sitting in the motor cycle, wrongfully restrained the complainant and snatched his money pursewith a cash of Rs.350/-. When the complainant raised hue and cry, thedetenu and his associate tried to escape from the spot. On hearingthe hue and cry of the complainant, the public at the spot came forhis rescue. On seeing the public, the detenu and his associate leftthe motor cycle on the road and picked up stones from the road sideand pelted the same against them. The stones fell on the road sideand scattered all over the road. At that time, Settu @ Gunasekaranthreatened the public by brandishing knife and by uttering filthywords. The public apprehending danger to their lives ran forsafety, shop vendors closed the shops and the entire traffic came tostandstill causing insecurity in the minds of the public. At thattime, the police personnel attached to J6 Thiruvanmiyur PoliceStation, who were on rounds, came to the spot and apprehended thedetenu and his associate with the help of public and retrieved theknife and other items.
Based on the complaint given by thecomplainant, a case, as stated above, was registered. 3.2. The second respondent, taking note of the above case as aground case and finding that there are eight adverse cases pendingagainst the detenu in Crime No.418/2007 on the file of R9Valasaravakkam Police Station, Crime Nos.102, 232, 255, 408 and413/2007 on the file of J6 Thiruvanmiyur Police Station, CrimeNo.900/2007 on the file of S8 Adambakkam Police Station and CrimeNo.551/2007 on the file of Tindivanam Police Station, for the offencepunishable under Section 379 I.P.C. and having satisfied that there is https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ a compelling necessity to detain him in order to prevent him fromindulging in the activities which are prejudicial to the maintenanceof public order, ordered his detention branding him as a Goonda.
The learned counsel for the petitioner placing reliance on thedecision of the Apex Court in DARPAN KUMAR SHARMA alias DHARBAN KUMARSHARMA v. STATE OF TAMIL NADU [(2003) 1 CRIMES 446], contends thatthe said eight adverse cases relate to the offence punishable under Section 379 I.P.C., and therefore, the solitary instance of robberymentioned in the ground case is not relevant for sustaining the orderof detention and hence, the impugned order of detention suffers on theground of non-application of mind on the part of the detainingauthority.
We have heard learned Additional Public Prosecutor on theabove said point.
As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for thepetitioner, it is evident that the adverse cases mentioned in thegrounds of detention do not relate to any law and order problem. But, the offence said to have been committed by the detenu as per theground case attracts the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982.7.1. In DARPAN KUMAR SHARMA alias DHARBAN KUMAR SHARMA v. STATEOF TAMIL NADU [(2003) 1 CRIMES 446], cited supra, whereunder the orderof detention was based on the solitary instance of robbery, the ApexCourt held as follows:-"... Though in the grounds of detention the detainingauthority had stated that by committing this offence inpublic the detenu created a sense of alarm, scare and afeeling of insecurity in the minds of the public of the areaand thereby acted in a manner prejudicial to the maintenanceof public order which affected the even tempo of life of thecommunity, but citation of these words in the order ofdetention is more in the nature of a ritual rather than withany significance to the content of the matter. Thus, asolitary instance of robbery as mentioned in the grounds ofdetention is not relevant for sustaining the order ofdetention for the purpose of preventing the petitioner fromacting in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of publicorder. "7.2. That apart, the above ratio laid down by the Apex Court wasfollowed by a Division Bench of this Court, in which one of us https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ (P.D.DINAKARAN, J.) was a party, in MALA v. THE SECRETARY TOGOVERNMENT, PROHIBITION AND EXCISE DEPARTMENT, GOVT. OF TAMIL NADU,CHENNAI, [(2004) M.L.J. (Crl.) 306].
Admittedly, in the instant case, the adverse cases relate tothe offence of theft punishable under Section 379, IPC and the groundcase relates to the offence of robbery punishable under Section 392IPC and hence, we are of the opinion that the ratio laid down inDARPAN KUMAR SHARMA's case, cited supra, squarely applies to thepresent case on hand, which is also not disputed by the learnedAdditional Public Prosecutor.
Operative part
Applying the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in Darpan KumarSharma's case, cited supra, we are inclined to set aside the order ofdetention, Accordingly, the order of detention dated 3.7.2007 is setaside and the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed. The detenu Deena @Dinesh @ Arun @ Arun Kumar is directed to be released forthwith, unless he is required in any other case. ATRSd/-Asst. Registrar./true copy/Sub Asst. Registrar. To1. The Secretary to Government Prohibition and Excise Department Secretariat, Chennai-600 009.2. The Commissioner of Police Greater Chennai.3. The Superintendent Central Prison, Chennai.4. The Public Prosecutor High Court, Madras.5. The Joint Secretary to Govt, Public (Law & Order) Department, Fort St George, Chennai-9.ASM (co)sg 13/12/07HCP No.1353 of 2007 5.12.2007.
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: 2007 is setaside and the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Constitution of India — art. 226; Tamil Nadu Act; Indian Penal Code, 1860 — ss. 336, 341, 379, 392, 506(ii).
Which court decided this case, and when?
Madras High Court, on 05 Dec 2007. The bench was P D DINAKARAN.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.