High Court · 2008

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDated : 09.07.2008Coram :-The Honourable Mr.Justice D.MURUGESANandThe Honourable Mr.Justice S. PALANIVELUH.C.P.No.197 of 2008 Lakshmanan.. Petitionervs.1. The State of Tamilnadu Rep. by its Secretary to Government, Prohibition and Excise Dept., Fort. St. George, Chennai.2. The Commissioner of Police, Chennai Police, Chennai. .. RespondentsPetition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,praying for the issue of a Writ of Habeas Corpus, calling for therecords culminating in passing the impugned order dated 28.07.2007on the file of the second respondent made in proceedings No.353 of2007 against the detenu Lakshmanan S/o Ponnusamy, who is confinedin Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai, quash the same as illegal andconsequently direct the respondents herein to set the petitioner atliberty. For Petitioner : Mr. V. Murali For Respondents : Mr. M. Babu Muthu Meeran Additional Public Prosecutor O R D E R(ORDER OF THE COURT WAS MADE BY S.PALANIVELU, J) The detenu himself is the petitioner. He has been clampedwith the detention order dated 28.07.2007 by means of theproceedings in No.353/2007 by the second respondent, branding himas Goonda. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

2. He came to adverse notice of J-6 Thiruvanmiyur PoliceStation as many as 13 cases. All have been registered underSection 379/380 I.P.C. in Cr.Nos.961/2006, 365/2007, 400/2007,480/2007, 499/2007, 569/2007, 587/2007, 608/2007, 609/2007,612/2007, 617 of 2007, 623/2007 and 625 of 2007. The facts of theground case goes to show that one Sudhagar, who is working in ahotel on 8.7.2007 at about 07.15 hours was proceeding at IndiraNagar, near the Youth Hostel to attend his work with his brotherLokesh. At that time, the detenu along with two other confederatesby name Selvam and Jose @ Mariya Doss, who came in a cycle,wrongfully restrained Sudhagar and Lokesh. One of the confederatesviz., Selvam took out a knife and by brandishing the samethreatened them by holding over the neck of Sudhagar. At the sametime Jose @ Mariyadoss caught hold of Sudhagar from his back sideand the detenu caught hold of Lokesh, that Jose @ Mariyadoss anddetenu snatched cell phones from Sudhagar and intimidated him if heraised voice, he would be done to death, that the public who wereat the scene of crime, heard the hue and cry of the above saidthree persons and rushed to apprehend them, that the trio againthreatened all of them by uttering, if anybody came near, theywould be murdered, besides picking up stones from the roadside andpelted at them, the public were noticing the atrocious activities,ran for safer places out of fear of danger to their lives andproperties; that the public who were proceeding in their vehicleson the busy road noticed the atrocious activities and feared tomove further, resulting in traffic dislocation in that area, thatall the above said three persons including the detenu createdterror and panic on the spot, that however, Mr. Sudhagar, with thehelp of public surrounded and apprehended all the three personsand retrieved the knife, Cell phone and the watch and later theywere taken to Tiruvanmiyur Police Station, where Mr. Sudhagarlodged a complaint and a case was registered in J6 ThiruvanmiyurPolice Station Cr.No.629/2007 under Sections 341, 336, 392and 506(2)I.P.C.3. Mr. V. Murali, learned counsel for the petitioner wouldargue in vehemence that since all the adverse cases registeredagainst the detenu are under Sections 379 IPC alone, there was noprejudice to the maintenance of public order. It is his furthercontention that in the ground case, the detenu along with hisconfederates caused insecurity in the minds of people of the areais only a solitary instance which could not constitute a ground forpassing detention order. In support of his contention, he cited adecision rendered by the Honourable Supreme Court in 2003 (1) CTC382 [Darpan Kumar Sharma @ Dharban Kumar Sharma vs. State of TamilNadu and others] wherein Their Lordships observed as follows:"6. In the present case, the three allegedincidents in which the Commissioner of Police has https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ referred to are thefts arising under Section 379I.P.C. And therefore, there is only a solitaryinstance wherein the detenu is alleged to haverobbed in a public place one Kumar. Therefore,there is no marterial on record to show that thereach and potentiality of the single incident ofrobbery was so great as to disturb the even tempo ornormal life of the community in the locality ordisturb general peace and tranquility or create asense of alarm and insecurity in the locality.Though in the grounds of detention the detainingauthority had stated that by committing this offencein public the detenu created a sense of alarm, scareand a feeling of insecurity in the minds of thepublic of the area and thereby acted in a mannerprejudicial to the maintenance of public order whichaffected even tempo of life of the community, butcitation of those words in the order of detention ismore in the nature of a ritual rather than with anysignificance to the content of the matter. Thus, asolitary instance of robbery as mentioned in thegrounds of detention is not relevant for sustainingthe order of detention for the purposes ofpreventing the petitioner from acting in a mannerprejudicial to the maintenance of public order.This ground is enough to quash the order ofdetention made by the respondents."In that case before the Honourable Supreme Court, there were threeadverse cases under Section 379 I.P.C. and in the ground case, thedetenu was found committed robbery of Rs.1000/- at the knife pointand disturbed even tempo of public life. After considering thecircumstances of the case, Their Lordships were of the view thatthe solitary instance does not make out a ground and citation ofwords in the order of detention are in nature of ritual rather thannatural.4. In the case on hand, the detenu allegedly committed theoffence of theft in public places. In the second adverse case inCr.No.365 of 2007 on 21.4.2007 the detenu and his associatescommitted snatching of cell phone from one Arun Balaji while he waswalking on the road near the police booth opposite to Beach Road inKalakshetra Colony, Chennai-90, in the 3rd adverse case in Cr.No.400of 2007 on 2.5.2007 at 9.15 p.m at M.G.Road, Pazhamudir Solai shop,Thiruvanmiyur, the detneu and his confederates snatched cell phonefrom Selvi Akshaya while she was walking on the road. In the 4th,5th and 6th adverse cases also, facts go to the effect that thedetenu along with his friends committed theft of cell phones fromthe respective complainants while they were going in public places. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

5. As far as 7th adverse case in Cr.No.587 of 2007 is concernedat New Beach Extention, Thiruvalluvar Nagar, Tiruvanmiyur, thedetenu and his associates committed snatching of gold thali chainfrom one Tmt. Vijayalakshmi, while she was walking on the beach andshe struggled with them and recovered only a small piece of thalichain and the snatchers were escaped. The above said factscovered by the adverses case would go a long way to show that allthe said offences were committed by the detenu and his associatesin the public places and naturally the public peace and tranquilitywere in peril. Even though those cases have been registered underSection 379 IPC, the offences were committed in public places, inthe midst of number of persons. Certainly they would have causedpanic and insecurity in their minds. While these aspects areclosely scrutinised by this court, it is to be held that the detenucannot take recourse to the principles laid down in the decisionabove mentioned. Worthwhile it is to note that all the occurrencesin the adverse cases and ground case took place within the limitsof J-6 Thiruvanmiyur Police Station, Chennai which shows that thedetenu has frequently involved in the identical offences.6. As far as the facts of the case are concerned, ground casecould not be stated to be a solitary instance of disturbing thepublic tranquillity. As adverted to supra, the detenu involved incommitting the offences in public places and the ground case is nota solitary instance. Hence the argument made on behalf of thedetenu is incorrect.7. In the cases where identical situation arose, this Courthas taken consistent view that if the detenu is in the habit ofcommitting the offence disturbing the public peace and order, theaction of the detaining authority to detain him as per law couldnot be found wrong. This Court in the order passed in H.C.P.26 of2003 on 17.10.2004 [A. Prabhu vs. The State of Tamilnadu rep. bythe Chief Secretary to Government and another] observed as follows:".....One more distinguishing feature isthat all the eleven offences have taken placeonly within the jurisdiction of K.K.Nagar PoliceStation and in all the matters, the detenu wasarrested by the staff of the said policestation. If the incident of thefts are too manyin a singular locality coupled with the offenceof house breaking then it is bound to disturbthe even tempo of public life, as in that casethe public may not feel safe. In that way, thelaw laid down in Dharpan Kumar's case would notapply to the facts of the present case. No otherpoint was urged before us. For the reasons https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ stated above, the writ petition is dismissed."8. In the Order of H.C.P. No.388 of 2005[Viji vs. The State ofTamilnadu and another], this Court on 26.7.2005 has held as under:"8. It is also relevant to refer anotherDivision Bench decision of this Court renderedin HCP No.773, dated 6.10.2004, wherein, theBench has held that in a case of series oftheft in a particular area, chain snatching,etc., would positively effect public order. Inthe present case, the grounds of detention makeit clear the detenu has four adverse cases tohis credit, out of which, three relate tooffence under Section 379 IPC, and the firstone relates to offences under sections 147,341, 307 and 506(ii) IPC. The occurrence in theground case relates to offence under Sections341, 427, 336 and 332 r/w 506(ii) IPC. In thelight of his antecedents and various casesreferred to and the particulars furnished, asrightly observed in the decisions referredabove, particularly in HCP No.773 of 2004,order dated 6.10.2004, we are of the view thatthe Detaining Authority cannot be faulted indetaining the detenu under Tamil Nadu ACT 14 of1982."9. In yet another deceision of the Division Bench of thisCourt in H.C.P.No.518 of 2005 [Mrs. Thayappa vs. The State ofTamilnadu and another] rendered findings as mentioned below: “4. As far as the last point isconcerned, it is no doubt true that in thedecision reported in 2003 (1) C.T.C. 382(Darpan Kumar Sharma @ Dharban Kumar Sharma vs.State of Tamil Nadu and others) there is onlyone incident of robbery which was treated as aground case and all the earlier adverse caseswere registered under Section 379 I.P.C. But inthe case on hand, besides three adverse casesfor offences under Section 420, 379 and 420respectively, there is yet another adverse casewherein an offence under Section 392 I.P.C. hadcome to be registered. In that case also, atknife point in a broad day light, robbery wascommitted. From the perusal of the grounds ofdetention it is seen that after the detenu and https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ his associates were making good their escapeafter committing the robbery, the victim raiseda hue and cry which attracted the attention ofthe passersby. In other words, the ground caseoccurrence had taken place at 7.15p.m. namely atthe thick of the evening hour in a busythroughfare. When the victim, along with thepublic, attempted to apprehend the detenu andhis associates, they scared the public by notonly threatening them with dire consequencesnamely," If anybody tries to apprehend them, they willstab and pull out the intestine" but also pickedup the stones available there and pelted themindiscriminately at the public. As a result of such conduct, the public wereput in a state of insecurity which affectedtheir normal life. Having regard to the factthat the incident referred to in the ground casehad taken place during evening time in a busythroughfare and having regard to the overt actsattributed to the detenu and his associates,when they were attempted to be apprehended, weare of the considered opinion that no infirmitycan be found in the order of detention when itconcluded that the act of the detenu caused analarm and a sense of insecurity in the mind ofthe passersby.'' 10. In the light of the consistent judicial opinions renderedby this Court and consideration of the facts and circumstances ofthis case, it ought to be held that the petitioner has beendisturbing the maintenance of public order on many occasions andthe ground case is not a solitary one. There is no reason to holdthat the detention order is bristled with illegality. It is not atall vitiated by any of the circumstances available in this case,which does not suffer from any infirmity also. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

11. Having regard to the facts of the case we are of theconsidered view that there is no valid ground to quash the impugneddetention order. The petition does not merit consideration. Infine, the Habeas Corpus Petition is dismissed. Sd/Asst.Registrar/true copy/Sub Asst.Registrar ggsTo1. The Secretary to Government, Prohibition and Excise Dept., Fort. St. George, Chennai.2. The Commissioner of Police, Chennai Police, Chennai. 3. The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.SSV (CO)km/31.7. H.C.P.No.197 of 2008