Hakkim @ Abdul Hakkim v. State of Tamil Nadu

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.1563 of 2007 Hakkim @ Abdul Hakkim.. PetitionerVs1. State of Tamil Nadu, rep. by its Secretary to Govt., Prohibition and Excise Department Fort St. George, Chennai.

The Commissioner of Police Greater Chennai, Chennai... RespondentsPetition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of Indiafor issue of Writ of Habeas Corpus as stated therein.-----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.)Thepetitioner challenges the order of detention passed by the secondrespondent in No.285/2007 dated 3.7.2007 under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, DrugOffenders, Forest Officers, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders, SandOffenders, Slum Grabbers and Video Pirates Act, 1982 (Tamil Nadu Act https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 14 of 1982) branding him as a Goonda, by filing this petition for Habeas Corpus seeking to call for the records of the secondrespondent relating to the order of detention, referred to above, toquash the same and to direct the respondents to produce him beforethis Court and set at liberty forthwith.2.1. The impugned order of detention dated 3.7.2007 was passedon the basis of ground case in Crime No.297 of 2007 on the file of Tambaram Railway Police Station for alleged commission of offencesunder Sections 341, 336, 397 and 506(2) IPC, complaint of which waslodged by one Subramaniam.

According to the complainant, on20.6.2007 at about 19.00 hours, when he was proceeding in thesouthern gate of Tambaram Railway station, the detenu along withanother waylaid him and at the knife point, threatened him to partwith his money and when the complainant attempted to raise alarm, they held the knife on the complainant's neck and removed the goldchain. The accused also threatened the public who came to hisrescue, by brandishing the knife and pelted stones against them, which scattered all over the platform. Fearing danger to theirlives, the public ran for safer places and taking advantage of thepanic situation, the accused escaped from the spot. Duringinvestigation, the detenu and the other accused were arrested andproduced before Judicial Magistrate, Tambaram, who remanded them tojudicial custody.2.2. The second respondent, taking note of the above groundcase and finding that there are three adverse cases, two on the fileof Koyambedu Police Station Crime Nos.4181/2005 and 4397/2005 for theoffence under Section 384 and 379 r/w 34 IPC and one on the file of Tambaram Railway Police Station Cr.No.273 of 2007 for the offenceunder Section 379 IPC., having satisfied that there is a compellingnecessity to detain the detenu in order to prevent him from indulgingin the activities which are prejudicial to the maintenance of publicorder, 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 three adverse cases, referred to above, relate to theoffence punishable under Section 379 and 384 I.P.C., and therefore, the solitary 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-applicationof mind on the part of the detaining authority. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

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 1982.6.1. 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].7. Admittedly, in the instant case, the adverse cases relate tothe offence of theft punishable under Section 379 and 384 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. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

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. RegistrarsraTo1. The Secretary, Govt. of Tamil Nadu, Prohibition and Excise Department Fort St. George, Chennai.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 GovernmentPublic (Law and Order) Dept. Fort St. George, Chennai-9.MRD (CO)km/7.1.HCP No.1563 of 2007