Jose @ Mariyadoss v. The State of Tamil Nadu

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 10.12.2007CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.D.DINAKARAN ANDTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.REGUPATHIHabeas Corpus Petition No.1415 of 2007Jose @ Mariyadoss.. PetitionerVs1. The State of Tamil Nadu rep. by its Secretary to Government Prohibition and Excise Department Fort St.George, Chennai-600 009.2. The Commissioner of Police Greater Chennai Chennai... Respondents-----Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution ofIndia for issue of Writ of Habeas Corpus to call for entirerecords related to petitioner's detention under TN Act 14 of1982 dated 28.7.2007 on the file of 2nd Respondent herein madein proceedings No. 355 of 2007 and quash the same.-----For Petitioner : Mr.C.C.ChellappanFor Respondents: Mr.N.R.Elango Addl. Public Prosecutor-----O R D E R(Order of the Court was made by P.D.DINAKARAN,J.)The second respondent herein clamped an order of detentionas against the petitioner/detenu viz., Jose @ Mariyadoss, sonof Soosairaj, as the said authority arrived at the subjectivesatisfaction that the said detenu is a Goonda and he has to bedetained under Section 3(1) of the Tamil Nadu Prevention ofDangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Forest https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Officers, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders, Sand Offenders,Slum Grabbers and Video Pirates Act, 1982 (Tamil Nadu Act 14 of1982).2. Challenging the abovesaid detention, the petitionerhimself has come forward with the present Habeas Corpus Petitionseeking a writ of habeas corpus to call for the recordspertaining to the detention order passed against the detenu bythe second respondent in Proceedings No.355/2007, dated28.7.2007, set aside the same and to direct the respondents toproduce the body of the detenu, now detained at Central Prison,Chennai before this Court and set him at liberty.3.1. The order of detention dated 28.7.2007 was passed onthe basis of ground case in Crime No.629 of 2007 for allegedcommission of offences under Sections 341, 336, 392 and 506(ii)IPC, complaint of which was lodged by one Sudhagar. Accordingto the complainant, on 8.7.2007, while he was proceeding atIndira Nagar near Youth Hostel to attend his work along with hisbrother Lokesh, the detenu herein and his associates Selvam andLakshmanan came in a cycle and wrongfully restrained thecomplainant and his brother. Further, the detenu and hisassociates snatched two cell phones and a wrist watch from thecomplainant and his brother at the knife point. When thecomplainant raised hue and cry, the detenu and his associatestried to escape from the spot. On hearing the hue and cry ofthe complainant, the public at the spot came for his rescue.On seeing the public, the detenu and his associates picked upstones from the road side and pelted the same against them. Thestones fell on the road side and scattered all over the road.Further, the detenu and his associates threatened the public bybrandishing knife and uttering filthy words. The public ran tosafer places out of fear of danger to their lives andproperties, and thus the detenu created terror and panic at thespot. However, the complainant with the help of publicapprehended the detenu and his associates and handed over themto the Inspector of Police, J6 Thiruvanmiyur Police Station.Based on the complaint given by the complainant, a case, asstated above, was registered. 3.2. The second respondent, taking note of the above case asa ground case and finding that there are twelve adverse casespending against the detenu in Crime Nos.365, 400, 480, 499, 569,587, 608, 609, 612, 617, 623 and 625 of 2007 on the file of J6Thiruvanmiyur Police Station for the offence punishable underSection 379 I.P.C., having satisfied that there is a compellingnecessity to detain him in order to prevent him from indulgingin the activities which are prejudicial to the maintenance ofpublic order, ordered his detention branding him as a Goonda. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner placing relianceon the decision of the Apex Court in DARPAN KUMAR SHARMA aliasDHARBAN KUMAR SHARMA v. STATE OF TAMIL NADU [(2003) 1 CRIMES446], contends that the said twelve adverse cases relate to theoffence punishable under Section 379 I.P.C., and therefore, thesolitary instance of robbery mentioned in the ground case is notrelevant for sustaining the order of detention and hence, theimpugned order of detention suffers on the ground of non-application of mind on the part of the detaining authority.5. We have heard learned Additional Public Prosecutor onthe above said point.6. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for thepetitioner, it is evident that the adverse cases mentioned inthe grounds of detention do not relate to any law and orderproblem. But, the offence said to have been committed by thedetenu as per the ground case attracts the provisions of theTamil 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 solitaryinstance of robbery, the Apex Court held as follows:-"... Though in the grounds of detention the detainingauthority had stated that by committing this offencein public the detenu created a sense of alarm, scareand a feeling of insecurity in the minds of the publicof the area and thereby acted in a manner prejudicialto the maintenance of public order which affected theeven tempo of life of the community, but citation ofthese words in the order of detention is more in thenature of a ritual rather than with any significanceto the content of the matter. Thus, a solitaryinstance of robbery as mentioned in the grounds ofdetention is not relevant for sustaining the order ofdetention for the purpose of preventing the petitionerfrom acting in a manner prejudicial to the maintenanceof public order."7.2. That apart, the above ratio laid down by the ApexCourt was followed by a Division Bench of this Court, in whichone of us (P.D.DINAKARAN, J.) was a party, in MALA v. THESECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, PROHIBITION AND EXCISE DEPARTMENT,GOVT. OF TAMIL NADU, CHENNAI, [(2004) M.L.J. (Crl.) 306]. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

8. Admittedly, in the instant case, the adverse casesrelate to the offence of theft punishable under Section 379, IPCand the ground case relates to the offence of robbery punishableunder Section 392 IPC and hence, we are of the opinion that theratio laid down in DARPAN KUMAR SHARMA's case, cited supra,squarely applies to the present case on hand, which is also notdisputed by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor.9. Applying the ratio laid down by the Apex Court inDarpan Kumar Sharma's case, cited supra, we are inclined to setaside the order of detention, Accordingly, the order ofdetention dated 28.7.2007 is set aside and the Habeas CorpusPetition is allowed. The detenu Jose @ Mariyadoss is directedto be released forthwith, unless he is required in any othercase. ATRSd/Asst.Registrar/true copy/Sub Asst.RegistrarTo1. The Secretary to Government Prohibition & Excise Department Secretariat, Chennai 9.2. The Commissioner of Police Greater Chennai, Chennai.3. The Superintendent Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai.4. The Joint Secretary to the Government of Tamil Nadu,Public (Law and Order) Department,Fort St George, Chennai 9.5. The Public Prosecutor High Court, Madras.KU(CO)SR/26.12.2007HCP No.1415 of 2007