Anandaraj @ Kattupuchi v. State of Tamil Nadu

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED: 24.1.2008CORAMTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.D.DINAKARANANDTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.R.SHIVA KUMARH.C.P.No.1770 of 2007Anandaraj @ Kattupuchi.. PetitionerVs.1. State of Tamil Nadu rep. by its Secretary to Government Prohibition & Excise Department Fort St.George Chennai-9.2. The Commissioner of Police Greater Chennai Egmore, Chennai 600 008... RespondentsPetition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India toissue Habeas Corpus to call for the records pertaining the order ofdetenu passed against the detenu (the petitioner herein) under memoNo.BDFGISV 361/07 dated 29.08.2007 by the 2nd respondent herein andquash the same as not maintainable against the above detenu andconsequently direct the respondents to produce the body of the detenu(the petitioner herein) who has been confined in Central Prison, Puzhal,Chennai - 66 before this Honourable Court and set him at libertyforthwith.For Petitioner : Mr.D.NandagopalFor Respondents : Mr.N.R.Elango Addl. Public ProsecutorO R D E R(Made by P.D.DINAKARAN,J.)The second respondent herein clamped an order of detention asagainst the petitioner herein, as the said authority arrived at thesubjective satisfaction that the petitioner is a Goonda and has to bedetained under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Prevention of DangerousActivities of Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Forest Officers, https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders, Sand Offenders, Slum Grabbers andVideo Pirates Act, 1982 (Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982).2.1. The order of detention dated 29.8.2007 came to be passed bythe second respondent on the basis of the ground case in Crime No.676 of2007 on the file of S6, Shankar Nagar Police Station for the offencepunishable under Sections 341, 336, 427, 506(2) read with 397, IPC,complaint of which was given by one Karnan. On 17.7.2007, at about 7.00pm, when the complainant was proceeding near M/s. Forward LeatherCompany, the detenu wronguflly restrained him at the point of knife andasked to hand over the money with him. Fearing danger, the complainantgave Rs.110/- which he had in his pocket. On noticing the gold chain inthe neck of the complainant, the detenu asked to hand over the same.When the complainant told that it is a covering chain, the detenusnatched the same and proceeded towards Atham Nagar. The complainantraised hue and cry. Immediately, he public came for his rescue and toapprehend the detenu. On seeing the public, the detenu pick up cooldrink bottles and stones and pelted the same against them, which fell onthe road side, broken into pieces and scattered on the road side. Dueto the atrocious activities of the detenu, the public ran for saferplaces fearing danger to their lives, resulting in traffic dislocation. 2.2. Apart from the above, the detaining authority also took noteof two adverse cases pending against the detenu, viz., CrimeNos.593/2007 and 670/2007 on the file of Shankar Nagar Police Stationfor the offence under Section 457 and 380, IPC.2.3. The detaining authority, having satisfied that the detenu isindulging in activities which are prejudicial to maintenance of publicorder, passed the impugned order.3. Challenging the said detention, the detenu has come forward withthe present Habeas Corpus Petition seeking a writ of habeas corpus tocall for the records relating to the detention order inC.No.361/BDFGISSV/2007, dated 29.8.2007 passed by the second respondentherein, to quash the same and to direct the respondent to produce him,now detained in Central Prison, Chennai and to set him at liberty.4. The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitionerassailing the order of detention is that while all the adverse casesreferred to in the grounds of detention relate to the offence punishableunder Section 457 and 380 IPC, the solitary instance mentioned in theground case, which relate to the offence punishable under Sections 341,336, 427 and 506(2), IPC is not relevant for sustaining the order ofdetention. The learned counsel, in support of the said plea, reliedupon the decision of the Apex Court in DARPAN KUMAR SHARMA alias DHARBANKUMAR SHARMA v. STATE OF TAMIL NADU [(2003) 1 CRIMES 446]. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

5. We have heard learned Additional Public Prosecutor on the abovesaid 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 per the groundcase attracts the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982.7.1. In DARPAN KUMAR SHARMA alias DHARBAN KUMAR SHARMA v. STATE OFTAMIL NADU [(2003) 1 CRIMES 446], cited supra, whereunder the order ofdetention was based on the solitary instance of robbery, the Apex Courtheld as follows:-"... Though in the grounds of detention the detainingauthority had stated that by committing this offence in publicthe detenu created a sense of alarm, scare and a feeling ofinsecurity in the minds of the public of the area and therebyacted in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of publicorder which affected the even tempo of life of the community,but citation of these words in the order of detention is morein the nature of a ritual rather than with anysignificance to the content of the matter. Thus, a solitaryinstance of robbery as mentioned in the grounds of detentionis not relevant for sustaining the order of detention for thepurpose of preventing the petitioner from acting in a mannerprejudicial to the maintenance of public order."7.2. 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].8. Admittedly, in the instant case, the adverse cases relate to theoffence of theft punishable under Sections 457 and 380, IPC and theground case relates to the offence of robbery punishable under Sections341, 336, 392 and 506(2), IPC and hence, we are of the opinion that theratio laid down in DARPAN KUMAR SHARMA's case, cited supra, squarelyapplies to the present case on hand, which is also not disputed by thelearned Additional Public Prosecutor. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

9. Applying the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in Darpan KumarSharma's case, cited supra, we are inclined to set aside the order ofdetention, Accordingly, the order of detention is set aside and theHabeas Corpus Petition is allowed. The detenu is directed to bereleased forthwith, unless he is required in any other case. Sd/Asst.Registrar/true copy/Sub Asst.RegistrarkplTo1. The Secretary to Government Home, Prohibition and Excise Department Fort St.George, Chennai – 9.2. The Commissioner of Police Greater Chennai, Egmore, Chennai-8.3. The Superintendent of Central Prison Central Prison, Chennai.4. The Public Prosecutor High Court, Madras.5. The Joint Secretary to Government, Public (Law and Order) Department, Fort St.George, Chennai -9.1 cc To Mr.D.Nandagopal, Advocate, SR.3086.H.C.P.No.1770 of 2007. RSV(CO)RVL 01.02.2008