Babu v. The State of Tamil Nadu

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 23.10.2007CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.D.DINAKARAN ANDTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.REGUPATHIH.C.P.No.969 of 2007 Babu... PetitionerVs.

The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by its Secretary to Govt., Prohibition & Excise Department, Chennai-600 009.

District Magistrate and District Collector, Kancheepuram District, Kancheepuram.... RespondentsPRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of Writ of Habeas Corpus call for the records relating to thedetenue's detention order passed by the 2nd respondent in his orderNo.03/2007 dated 30.1.2007 approved by the 1st respondent and set aside the same and produce the detenue Babu now detained in central prison-II,puzhal, Chennai as stated therein. For Petitioner: Mr.N.RamuFor Respondents: Mr.N.R.Elango Additional Public ProsecutorORDER(Order of this Court was made by P.D.DINAKARAN,J.)The impugned order of detention dated 30.01.2007, passed by the second respondent, branding the petitioner herein as Goonda and directing his detention under Section 3(1) of the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Forest Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders, Sand Offenders, Slum Grabbers and Video Pirates Act, 1982 (Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982), is challenged in this writ petition by the detenu himself. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

2. According to the detaining authority, viz., the second respondent, the ground case occurrence is said to have taken place on 07.01.2007 at10.00 hours. The complainant by name Somasundaram is a fruit vendor doing business in front of Rajaji Market at Adisanpettai. The accused detenucame to his place of business and, by threatening and uttering filthy words, demanded money from the complainant. When the complainant refused, he took a knife and tried to assault him. The complainant prevented the attack and in that transaction, he sustained simple injury, however, the accused could take away Rs.300/- from the complainant's pocket. Hearingthe hue and cry raised by the complainant, neighbours gathered at that place, and the accused, by showing knife and stopping the vehicles passing thereby ran away through Mettu Street. Due to the vandal activities of the detenu, the general public ran to safer places and the normalcy of the area came to a standstill. On receipt of complaint from the complainant, the Sub Inspector of Police registered a case in VinshnuKanchi Police Station Cr. No.7/2007 under Section 294(b), 506(ii), 307 and394 IPC. The Detaining Authority, taking note of six adverse cases to the credit of the detenu and considering his activities prejudicial to the maintenance of public order, clamped the detention order on him.

The core contention of the learned counsel for thepetitioner/detenu assailing the order of detention is that while the adverse cases referred to in the grounds of detention relate to offences punishable under Sections 457, 461 and 380 (theft cases, which do not attract law and order problem), the solitary instance of robbery mentioned in the ground case is not relevant for sustaining the order of detention. The learned counsel, in support of the said plea, relied upon the decision of the Apex Court in DARPAN KUMAR SHARMA alias DHARBAN KUMAR SHARMA v.STATE OF TAMIL NADU [(2003) 1 CRIMES 446].

We have heard learned Additional Public Prosecutor on the abovesaid point.

As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner, it is evident that the adverse cases mentioned in the grounds of detention do not relate to any law and order problem. But, the offence said to have been committed by the detenu in the ground case attracts the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982, as per which, the acts prejudicial to public order are "when he is engaged, or is making preparations for engaging, in any of these activities as a goonda which affect adversely, or are likely to affect adversely, the maintenance of public order".6. In DARPAN KUMAR SHARMA alias DHARBAN KUMAR SHARMA v. STATE OFTAMIL NADU [(2003) 1 CRIMES 446], cited supra, whereunder the order of detention was based on the solitary instance of robbery, the Apex Courtheld as follows:- https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ "... Though in the grounds of detention the detaining authority had stated that by committing this offence in public the detenucreated a sense of alarm, scare and a feeling of insecurity in the minds of the public of the area and thereby acted in amanner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order which affected the even tempo of life of the community, but citation of these words in the order of detention is more in the nature of a ritual rather than with any significance to the content of the matter.