Kannan v. State of Tamil Nadu

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 3.1.2008CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.D.DINAKARAN ANDTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.REGUPATHIHabeas Corpus Petition No.1618 of 2007Kannan.. PetitionerVs1. 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 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.)The second respondent herein clamped an order of detention asagainst the petitioner/detenu – Kannan, son of Karuppusamy as thesaid authority arrived at the subjective satisfaction that the saiddetenu 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). https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

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.370/2007, dated 20.9.2007, 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 20.9.2007 was passed on thebasis of ground case in Crime No.511 of 2007 for alleged commissionof offences under Sections 341, 294(b), 323, 506(ii) and 397 IPC,complaint of which was lodged by one Mani. According to thecomplainant, on 31.7.2007, while he was walking near Mangadu,K.K.Nagar to attend his work, the detenu herein and one Suresh camein a motorcycle and wrongfully restrained the complainant. Further,the said Suresh snatched a sum of Rs.610/- and cell phone and thedetenu snatched wrist watch from the complainant at the knife point.On hearing the hue and cry of the complainant, the public at thespot came for his rescue. On seeing the public, the detenu and hisassociate threatened the public by brandishing knife and utteringfilthy words. The public ran to safer places out of fear of dangerto their lives and properties, and thus the detenu and his associatecreated terror and panic at the spot. In the melee, the detenu andhis associate escaped from the spot. Based on the complaint givenby 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 ten adverse cases pendingagainst the detenu in Crime No.1248/2006 on the file of MaduravoyalPolice Station, Crime No. 1232/2007 on the file of R5 VirugambakkamPolice Station, Crime Nos.730 and 812/2007 on the file of R9Valasaravakkam Police Station, Crime No.479 on the file of T13Kundrathur Police Station and Crime Nos. 497, 500, 501, 504 and 508of 2007 on the file of T14 Mangadu Police Station for the offencepunishable under Section 379 I.P.C., and having satisfied that thereis 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.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 ten adverse cases relate to the offencepunishable under Section 379 I.P.C., and therefore, the solitary https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ instance 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 the 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 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].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 397 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/

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 dated20.9.2007 is set aside and the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed.The detenu Kannan 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 Joint Secretary to Government, Public (Law and Order) Department, Fort St. George, Chennai-9.5. The Public Prosecutor High Court, Madras.Rsv (co)dv/11.1.HCP No.1618 of 2007