Selvam 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.1421 of 2007Selvam.. 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 of Indiafor issue of Writ of Habeas Corpus to call for the entire records,related to petitioner's detention under Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982vide detention order, dated 28.7.2007 on the file of the secondrespondent herein made in proceedings No.354/2007, quash the same asillegal and consequently direct the respondents herein to producethe said petitioner namely Selvam before this Hon'ble High Court andset the petitioner at liberty from detention, now detained inCentral Prison, Puzhal, Chennai-66.-----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 detention asagainst the petitioner/detenu viz., Selvam, son of Nagappan, as thesaid authority arrived at the subjective satisfaction that the said https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ detenu is a Goonda and he has to be detained under Section 3(1) ofthe 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 (TamilNadu Act 14 of 1982).2. Challenging the abovesaid detention, the petitioner himselfhas 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 respondentin Proceedings No.354/2007, dated 28.7.2007, set aside the same andto direct the respondents to produce the body of the detenu, nowdetained at Central Prison, Chennai before this Court and set him atliberty.3.1. The order of detention dated 28.7.2007 was passed on thebasis of ground case in Crime No.629 of 2007 for alleged commissionof offences under Sections 341, 336, 392 and 506(ii) IPC, complaintof which was lodged by one Sudhagar. According to the complainant,on 8.7.2007, while he was proceeding at Indira Nagar near YouthHostel to attend his work along with his brother Lokesh, the detenuherein and his associates Jose @ Mariyadoss and Lakshmanan came in acycle and wrongfully restrained the complainant and his brother.Further, the detenu and his associates snatched two cell phones anda wrist watch from the complainant and his brother at the knifepoint. When the complainant raised hue and cry, the detenu and hisassociates tried to escape from the spot. On hearing the hue andcry of the complainant, the public at the spot came for his rescue.On seeing the public, the detenu and his associates picked up stonesfrom the road side and pelted the same against them. The stonesfell on the road side and scattered all over the road. Further, thedetenu and his associates threatened the public by brandishing knifeand uttering filthy words. The public ran to safer places out offear of danger to their lives and properties, and thus the detenucreated terror and panic at the spot. However, the complainant withthe help of public apprehended the detenu and his associates andhanded over them to the Inspector of Police, J6 Thiruvanmiyur PoliceStation. Based on the complaint given by the complainant, 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 twelve adverse cases pendingagainst the detenu in Crime Nos.365, 400, 480, 499, 569, 587, 608,609, 612, 617, 623 and 625 of 2007 on the file of J6 ThiruvanmiyurPolice Station for the offence punishable under Section 379 I.P.C.,having satisfied that there is a compelling necessity to detain himin order to prevent him from indulging in the activities which areprejudicial to the maintenance of public order, ordered hisdetention branding him as a Goonda. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner placing reliance onthe decision of the Apex Court in DARPAN KUMAR SHARMA alias DHARBANKUMAR SHARMA v. STATE OF TAMIL NADU [(2003) 1 CRIMES 446],contends that the said twelve adverse cases relate to the offencepunishable under Section 379 I.P.C., and therefore, the solitaryinstance of robbery mentioned in the ground case is not relevant forsustaining the order of detention and hence, the impugned order ofdetention suffers on the ground of non-application of mind on thepart of the detaining authority.5. We have heard learned Additional Public Prosecutor on theabove said point.6. 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 perthe ground case attracts the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of1982.7.1. In DARPAN KUMAR SHARMA alias DHARBAN KUMAR SHARMA v.STATE OF TAMIL NADU [(2003) 1 CRIMES 446], cited supra, whereunderthe order of detention was based on the solitary instance ofrobbery, the Apex Court 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 thearea and thereby acted in a manner prejudicial to themaintenance of public order which affected the even tempoof life of the community, but citation of these words inthe order of detention is more in the nature of a ritualrather than with any significance to the content of thematter. Thus, a solitary instance of robbery as mentionedin the grounds of detention is not relevant for sustainingthe order of detention for the purpose of preventing thepetitioner from acting in a manner prejudicial to themaintenance of public order."7.2. That apart, the above ratio laid down by the Apex Courtwas 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 TOGOVERNMENT, 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 cases relate tothe offence of theft punishable under Section 379, IPC and theground case relates to the offence of robbery punishable underSection 392 IPC and hence, we are of the opinion that the ratio laiddown in DARPAN KUMAR SHARMA's case, cited supra, squarely applies tothe present case on hand, which is also not disputed by the learnedAdditional Public Prosecutor.9. Applying the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in DarpanKumar Sharma's case, cited supra, we are inclined to set aside theorder of detention, Accordingly, the order of detention dated28.7.2007 is set aside and the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed.The detenu Selvam is directed to be released forthwith, unless he isrequired in any other case. ATRSd/-Asst. Registrar./true copy/Sub Asst. Registrar.To1. 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 Public Prosecutor High Court, Madras.5. The Joint Secretary to Government, Public (Law and Order) Fort St. George, Madras-9.Ts (co)dv/26.12.