Madras High Court
Mrs. Mala vs The Secretary To Government on 23 December, 2003
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 23/12/2003
CORAM
THE HONURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.D.DINAKARAN
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M. THANIKACHALAM
H.C.P.No.1558 of 2003
Mrs. Mala .....Petitioner
-Vs-
1. The Secretary to Government,
Prohibition and Excise Dept.,
Government of Tamil Nadu,
Chennai - 600 009.
2. The Commissioner of Police
Greater Chennai
Egmore
Chennai 600 008. .....Respondents
Hebeas Corpus Petition, filed under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India, to quash the detention order dated 29.09.2003 passed by
the second respondent and to direct the respondents to produce the detenu
detained in Central Prison, Chennai, before this Court and also to set him at
liberty forthwith, as stated therein.
!For Petitioner :: Mr. A.K.S. Thahir
^For Respondents:: Mr. V.M.R.Rajendran
Addl. Public Prosecutor
:O R D E R
(Order of the Court was made by P.D.DINAKARAN, J) Challenging the order of detention dated 29.9.2003 passed by the second respondent branding the detenu as Goonda under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drug-offenders, Forest Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders and Slum-Grabbers Act 1982(Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982), the petitioner, who is the mother of the detenu, has filed the above petition.
2. The ground case is said to have taken place on 17.9.2003 at about 18.00 hours within the jurisdiction of Egmore Police Station. It is stated that the detenu Krishnamoorthy wrongfully restrained one Gurumoorthy and by threatening at the knife point, removed his wrist watch. The said Gurumoorthy raised hue and cry and after hearing the same, the police personnel, who were on rounds noticed and chased the detenu. The detenu rushed to the nearby bunk shop and picked up soda water bottles and hurled the same against the police and the public, thereby created terror panic at the spot. Gurumoorthy lodged a complaint before F2 Police Station, who in turn registered a case in Crime No.1488/2003 for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 33 6, 42 7, 392 and 506(2) IPC. It is further stated that there are five adverse cases against the detenu at various police stations, in Crime Nos.1607, 1585, 1586 of 2003 falling within the jurisdiction of Nungambakkam Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 379, 3 80, 457, 382, IPC, Crime No.752 of 2003 falling within the jurisdiction of Royapettah Police Station for the offence punishable under Section 379, IPC, Crime No.1206 of 2003 falling within the jurisdiction of Thousand Lights Police Station. Considering the ground case and also the adverse cases, the second respondent passed the impugned detention order.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that solitary instance of robbery as mentioned in the grounds of detention is not relevant for sustaining the order of detention, for which he relied upon the case of DARPAN KUMAR SHARMA @ DHARBAN KUMAR SHARMA v. STATE OF TAMIL NADU (2003 (1) CRIMES
446).
4. From the above facts, it is clear that none of the adverse cases relate to law and order problem. The basis on which the petitioner has been detained in the instant case is that he robbed the wrist watch of one Gurumoorthy at the point of a knife. In the case of " Goonda" as per section 2(a)(iii) of the Act, the acts prejudicial to public order are "when he is engaged, or is making preparations for engaging, in any of this activities as a goonda which affect adversely, or are likely to affect adversely, the maintenance of public order."
5. In DARPAN KUMAR SHARMA @ DHARBAN KUMAR SHARMA v. STATE OF TAMIL NADU (2003 (1) CRIMES 446), the Supreme Court, while dealing the question whether a man has only committed a breach of law and order or has acted in a manner likely to cause disturbance of the public order, held as follows:
" ... Though in the grounds of detention the detaining authority had stated that by committing this offence in public the detenu created a sense of alarm, scare and a feeling of insecurity in the minds of the public of the area and thereby acted in a manner 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. Thus, a solitary instance of robbery as mentioned in the grounds of detention is not relevant for sustaining the order of detention for the purpose of preventing the petitioner from acting in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order."
6. It is not in dispute that the ratio laid down in DARPAN KUMAR SHARMA @ DHARBAN KUMAR SHARMA v. STATE OF TAMIL NADU (2003 (1) CRIMES 4 46) squarely applies to the facts and circumstances of the case and in favour of the detenu, as relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner.
7. Hence, applying the above ratio to the case on hand, we are inclined to quash the impugned detention order dated 29.9.2003. Accordingly, this petition is allowed and the order of detention dated 29.9.20 03 is set aside. The detenu Krishnamoorthy is directed to be set at liberty unless and and until he is required in connection with any other case.
Index: Yes Internet: Yes Dpn/kpl