Jakkiriya v. The State of Tamil Nadu & Anr.
Case at a glance
Provisions considered
- Constitution of India art. 226
- Indian Penal Code, 1860 ss. 379, 380, 392, 457, 506(2)
- Tamil Nadu Act
Key paragraphs
- Para 77. Admittedly, in the instant case, the adverse cases relate tothe offence of theft punishable under Section 379 and 380 IPC and theground case relates to the offence of robbery punishable under Section 392 IPC and hence, we are of the opinion that the ratio…
- Para 88. 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 is set asideand the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed. The detenu is directed tobe released…
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 11.12.2007CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.D.DINAKARAN ANDTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.REGUPATHIHabeas Corpus Petition No.1551 of 2007 Jakkiriya.. PetitionerVs1. The State of Tamil Nadu, rep. by its Secretary, Prohibition and Excise Department Fort St. George, Chennai.
The Commissioner of Police Chennai Police, Egmore, Chennai 600 008... RespondentsPetition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India forissue of Writ of Habeas Corpus calling for the records of the Orderof detention dated 14.06.2007 made in NO.238/BDFGISSV/2007 on thefile of the 2nd respondent and quash the same and direct therespondents herein to produce the body of detenu Ismail who isdetained in the Puzhal Central Prison, Chennai set him at liberty. For Petitioner : Mr.K.G.SenthilkumarFor Respondents: Mr.N.R.Elango Addl. Public ProsecutorO R D E R(Order of the Court was made by P.D.DINAKARAN,J.)The petitioner, father of the detenu by name Ismail, challengesthe order of detention passed by the second respondent inNo.238/BDFGISSV/2007 dated 14.6.2007 branding his son as a Goonda, byfiling this petition for Habeas Corpus seeking to call for therecords of the second respondent relating to the order of detention, referred to above, to quash the same and to direct the respondents to https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ produce the detenu before this Court and set him at liberty forthwith.2.1.
The impugned order of detention dated 14.6.2007 was passedon the basis of ground case in Crime No.229 of 2007 on the file of Egmore Railway Police Station for alleged commission of offencesunder Sections 392 and 506(2) IPC, complaint of which was lodged byone Pradeep Kumar. According to the complainant, on 31.5.2007 atabout 1.45 p.m., when his daughter by name Shiny was proceeding nearthe ticket counter at Light House Railway Station, the detenu andanother followed her and at the knife point, threatened her andsnatched her gold chain. When she raised alarm, the ticket issuingclerk and the public chased and tried to apprehend the accused, butthey brandished their knives and pelted stones on them, whichscattered all over the roadside. Out of fear and danger to theirlives, the public ran here and there resulting in the dislocation oftraffic and while the accused creating panic and terror situationtried to escape from the spot, the public and the ticket issuingclerk surrounded them and handed over them to the police.
The detenuand the other accused were arrested and later, produced before XIVMetropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai, who remanded them tojudicial custody.2.2. The second respondent, taking note of the above ground caseand finding that there are two adverse cases, one on the file of D.3Ice House Police Station in Crime No.460 of 2007 for offences under Sections 457, 380 IPC and the other on the file of Tambaram RailwayPolice Station in Crime No.266 of 2007 for the offence under Section379 IPC., having satisfied that there is a compelling necessity todetain the detenu in order to prevent him from indulging in theactivities which are prejudicial to the maintenance of public order, ordered his detention branding him as a Goonda.
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], contendsthat the said two adverse cases relate to the offence punishableunder Section 379 and 380 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.
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 the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ ground case attracts the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982.6.1. In DARPAN KUMAR SHARMA alias DHARBAN KUMAR SHARMA v. STATEOF TAMIL NADU [(2003) 1 CRIMES 446], cited supra, whereunder theorder of detention was based on the solitary instance of robbery, 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. "6.2. That apart, the above ratio laid down by the Apex Court wasfollowed by a Division Bench of this Court, in which one of us(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 and 380 IPC and theground case relates to the offence of robbery punishable under Section 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.
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 is set asideand the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed. The detenu is directed tobe released forthwith, unless he is required in any other case. Sd/-Asst. Registrar./true copy/Sub Asst. Registrar.sra https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ To1. The Secretary, Govt. of Tamil Nadu, Prohibition and Excise Department Fort St. George, Chennai 9.2. The Commissioner of Police Chennai Police, Egmore, Chennai.3. The Superintendent Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai.4. The Joint Secretary to Government, Public [Law and Order] Department, Fort St. George, Chennai 9.5. The Public Prosecutor High Court, Madras.+ 1 CC To Mr. G.Senthil Kumar, Advocate SR NO.73437HCP No.1551 of 2007ad[co]gp/4.1.
Questions this judgment answers
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Constitution of India — art. 226; Indian Penal Code, 1860 — ss. 379, 380, 392, 457, 506(2); Tamil Nadu Act.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Madras High Court, on 11 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.