Muniyandi v. State of Tamilnadu

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 19.9.2007CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.D.DINAKARAN ANDTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.REGUPATHIH.C.P.No.791 of 2007Muniyandi.. PetitionerVs1. State of Tamilnadu, rep. by Secretary to Govt., Prohibition & Excise Department, St. George Fort, Chennai 600 009.2. The Commissioner of Police Greater Chennai Egmore, Chennai-8. .. RespondentsPRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution ofIndia for issue of Writ of Habeas Corpus directing therespondents herein to produce the petitoner MuniyandiT.P.D.A.No.7043 now confined in Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennaibefore this Honourable Court and set him at liberty forthwith fromdetention and call for the records pertaining to the passing ofthe order of detention by the 2nd respondent herein detentionorder Memo.No.76/BDFGISSV/2007 dated 27.02.2007 and quash thesame.For Petitioner:Mr.S.GovindarajanFor Respondents:Mr.N.R.Elango Additional Public ProsecutorO R D E R(Order of this Court was made by P.D.DINAKARAN,J.)The petitioner calls in question legality of the order ofdetention 27.2.2007 passed by the second respondent ordering hisdetention under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Prevention ofDangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drug-Offenders, Forest https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders, Slum-Grabbers andVideo Pirates Act, 1982 (in short “the Act”) branding him as a"Goonda".2. The order of detention dated 27.2.2007 was passed on thebasis of ground case in Crime No.291 of 2007 for allegedcommission of offences under Sections 341, 336, 427 and 506(ii)r/w 397 of I.P.C. The allegation against the detenu was that on6.2.2007 at about 6.30 hours, when one Selvaraj was proceeding toPozhichalur to take tea and while he was walking near PammalMunicipality Ambedkar statue, the petitioner wrongfully restrainedSelvaraj at the point of knife and asked him what was in hispocket. The petitioner voluntarily inserted his hand into theshirt pocket of Selvaraj and took away Rs.220/- and also snatchedthe wrist watch of Selvaraj. Noticing that the detenu wasescaping, Selvaraj raised hue and cry. The public nearby tried toapprehend him on the spot, but the detenu picked up biscuitbottles from the nearby shop and hurled the same against them byuttering filthy words. The bottles fell down on the road, brokeninto pieces and the pieces scattered all over the road. Thepublic ran to safer places out of fear of danger to their livesand properties, and thus the detenu created terror and panic atthe spot. In the melee, the detenu tried to escape from the spot.However, with the help of public, the detenu was apprehended atthe spot by the complainant.3. The second respondent, taking note of the above case as aground case and finding that there are two adverse cases pendingagainst the detenu in Crime No.1053 of 2005 on the file of S6Shankar Nagar Police Station and Crime No.121 of 2007 on the fileof P6 Kodungaiyur Police Station for the offence punishable underSection 380 IPC and having satisfied that there is a compellingnecessity to detain him in order to prevent him from indulging inthe activities which are prejudicial to the maintenance of publicorder, ordered his detention dubbing him as a Goonda. 4. The main contention of the learned counsel for thepetitioner/detenu assailing the order of detention is that whileboth the adverse cases referred to in the grounds of detentionrelate to the offence punishable under Section 380 I.P.C. (theftcases), the solitary instance of robbery mentioned in the groundcase is not relevant for sustaining the order of detention. Thelearned counsel, in support of the said plea, relied upon thedecision of the Apex Court in DARPAN KUMAR SHARMA alias DHARBANKUMAR SHARMA v. STATE OF TAMIL NADU [(2003) 1 CRIMES 446].5. We have heard learned Additional Public Prosecutor on theabove said point. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

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 14of 1982, as per which, the acts prejudicial to public order are"when he is engaged, or is making preparations for engaging, inany of these activities as a goonda which affect adversely, or arelikely to affect adversely, the maintenance of public order".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 eventempo of life of the community, but citation of thesewords in the order of detention is more in the nature ofa ritual rather than with any significance to thecontent of the matter. Thus, a solitary instance ofrobbery as mentioned in the grounds of detention is notrelevant for sustaining the order of detention for thepurpose of preventing the petitioner from acting in amanner prejudicial to the maintenance 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 TAMILNADU, CHENNAI, [(2004) M.L.J. (Crl.) 306].8. Admittedly, in the instant case, the adverse cases relateto the offence of theft punishable under Section 380 I.P.C. andthe ground case relates to the offence of robbery punishable underSections 341, 336, 427 and 506(ii) r/w 397 I.P.C. and hence, weare of the opinion that the ratio laid down in DARPAN KUMARSHARMA's case, cited supra, squarely applies to the present caseon hand, which is also not disputed by the learned AdditionalPublic Prosecutor.9. Hence, applying the ratio laid down by the Apex Court inDarpan Kumar Sharma's case, cited supra, we are inclined to setaside the order of detention dated 27.2.2007. Accordingly, theorder of detention is set aside and the Habeas Corpus Petition is https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ allowed. The detenu is directed to be set at liberty forthwithunless his presence is required in connection with any other case.Sd/-Asst. Registrar./true copy/Sub Asst. Registrar.ATRTo1. The Secretary to Government, State of Tamilnadu, Prohibition & Excise Department, Fort St. George, Chennai 600009.2. The Commissioner of Police Greater Chennai Egmore, Chennai-8.3. The Superintendent, Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai.4. The Joint Secretary to Government Public (Law and order)Fort Saint George, Chennai-9.5. The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.1 cc to M/s. S. Govindarajan, Advocate, SR. 58322H.C.P.No.791 of 2007AD (CO)kk 3/10