Madras High Court
Viji vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 26 July, 2005
Author: P.Sathasivam
Bench: P.Sathasivam
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Dated: 26/07/2005
Coram
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice P.SATHASIVAM
and
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice AR.RAMALINGAM
H.C.P. No.388 of 2005
Viji ... Petitioner
-Vs-
1. The State of Tamil Nadu
Rep. by its Secretary,
Prohibition and Excise Department,
Secretariat,
Chennai-600 009.
2. The Commissioner of Police,
Egmore, Chennai-600 008. ... Respondents
Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the
issuance of Writ of Habeas Corpus to direct the respondents to produce the
detenu Viji, son of Devaraj, who is now detained in Central Prison,
Chennai-600 003, in pursuance of the detention order passed by the second
respondent on 21.02.2005 in Number 57 of 2005 before this Honourable Court,
call for the records relating to the said order, set aside the above order and
set the above detenu at liberty.
!For Petitioner : Mr.E.R.K.Moorthy
^For Respondents : Mr.V.Arul,
Govt. Advocate (Crl. Side)
:O R D E R
(Order of the Court was made by P.SATHASIVAM, J.) The petitioner, who is detained as 'Goonda' under the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Forest Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders, Slum Grabbers and Video Pirates Act, 1982 (Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982) by the impugned proceedings dated 21.02.2005, challenges the same in this Petition.
2. After taking us through the grounds of detention and all other connected materials, learned counsel for the petitioner has raised the following contentions:-
(a) The impugned order of detention is liable to be set aside on the ground of non-application of mind on the part of the Detaining Authority.
(b) In view of defective translation in many places in the documents supplied to the detenu, the detention order has to be quashed.
(c) The Detaining Authority is not justified in clamping the detention order based on the solitary instance of robbery, namely, the ground case.
3. Coming to the first contention relating to non-application of mind, it is the claim of the petitioner that though the English version of the Arrest Report, which finds place at page No.97 of the Booklet, contains that the accused was produced before the 8th Metropolitan Magistrate, G.T. Court, on 11.02.2005, the same is not reflected correctly in the Tamil version which finds place at page No.98 of the Booklet. We perused the copy of the Arrest Report - both English and Tamil versions. It is true that in the English version, the date on which he was produced before the court is stated as 11.02.2005. No doubt, in the Tamil version of the Arrest Report, the date, namely, 1 1.02.2005, has not been mentioned. However, it is not in dispute that other documents, particularly the remand order, which finds place at page No.103 of the Booklet, makes it clear that the accused was produced on 11.02.2005. In such circumstances, if we consider all the above mentioned documents together, it cannot be claimed that the Detaining Authority has not applied his mind as claimed.
4. Coming to the defective translation, learned counsel for the petitioner has pointed out the very same Arrest Report, which finds place at page Nos.97 and 98 of the Booklet. According to him, though the relevant date, namely, 11.02.2005, is mentioned in the English version of the Arrest Report, it does not find place in the Tamil version. He also relied on a Division Bench decision of this Court reported in 2005 (1) CTC 47 (Mannu @ Boopathy v. The Secretary to Government, Prohibition and Excise Department and another). No doubt, in the said decision, the Division Bench, after finding that there is defective translation, quashed the detention order. In the present case, as pointed out earlier, though the relevant date, viz., 11.02.2005, does not find place in the Tamil version of the Arrest Report, which finds place at page No.98 of the Booklet, admittedly, all other documents, particularly, the remand order contains the date of production of the accused as 11.02.2005. In such circumstances, we are of the view that, in the absence of showing any prejudice on the part of the petitioner, the omission to mention the date in the Tamil version has not affected the detenu in any way making his representation. We are satisfied that the said decision is not applicable to the facts of this case.
5. It is also brought to our notice that at page No.107 of the Booklet, which contains copy of bail petition, there is a reference to the order of the learned Magistrate, dated 18.02.2005, wherein, the learned Magistrate has endorsed that 'Bail order in separate sheet petition dismissed.' According to the counsel, the said endorsement does not find place in the Tamil version of the bail petition supplied to the detenu, which finds place at page No.108 of the Booklet. It is not in dispute that the copy of the order, dismissing the bail petition, finds place at page Nos.109 and 110 of the Booklet, that is, both in English and Tamil. In such circumstances, we are of the view that merely because there is omission of the endorsement of the learned Magistrate in the translated copy of the bail petition, the detention order cannot be faulted with. Inasmuch as the detenu was supplied with copy of the order dated 18.02.2005, both English and Tamil versions, we are satisfied that the detenu was offered with adequate opportunity to put forth his case.
6. Coming to the last contention that the Detaining Authority is not justified in clamping the detention order on the solitary instance of robbery, namely, ground case that had taken place on 10.02.2005, learned counsel for the petitioner, in this regard, relied on a Division Bench decision of this Court reported in 2004 (I) Madras Weekly Notes (Criminal) 232 (Dhanalakshmi v. The Commissioner of Police, Greater Chennai, Egmore, Chennai-7 & others). In that decision, the Division Bench, after noting that the adverse cases related to offence of theft under Section-379 IPC. and the ground case related only to a solitary instance, wherein a case was registered under Section 397 IPC., held that a solitary instance of robbery, mentioned in ground case, cannot be said to be relevant for sustaining the order of detention and quashed the order of detention order therein.
7. It is relevant to note that the very same Division Bench, in HCP No.433 of 2003, by order dated 11.11.2003, with reference to the detention based on solitary instance of robbery, has concluded thus:-
" 8. With reference to the last point that the ground case alone would relate to Section 397 IPC, which would relate to the disturbance of public order, and as such, the solitary instance would not be sufficient to clamp the detention order, it has to be stated that out of eight adverse cases, the first case would relate to robbery, where it is stated that on 22-6-2001, the detenu along with others, at the point of knife, committed robbery of gold jewels. Apart from that, item No.7 in the adverse case would relate to offence under Section 379 IPC, where the detenu was accused that on 21-10-2002, he and his associates, committed snatching of gold chain from one Selvi in a public street and escaped. Therefore, it cannot be said that the ground case is the solitary instance which was considered by the detaining authority. On the other hand, the detaining authority considered the total nine cases, including the ground case, out of which, the adverse cases No.1 and No.7 and the ground case, would relate to the offence which would disturb the public order."
The above decision makes it clear that it cannot be said that on the basis of solitary instance, the detention order can be clamped by the Detaining Authority.
8. It is also relevant to refer another Division Bench decision of this Court rendered in HCP No.773, dated 06.10.2004, wherein, the Bench has held that in a case of series of theft in a particular area, chain snatching, etc., would positively affect public order. In the present case, the grounds of detention make it clear the detenu has four adverse cases to his credit, out of which, three relate to offence under Section 379 IPC. and the first one relates to offences under Sections-147 341, 307 & 506 (ii) IPC. The occurrence in the ground case relates to offences under Sections 341, 427, 336 and 392 read with 506 (ii) IPC. In the light of his antecedents and various cases referred to and the particulars furnished, as rightly observed in the decisions referred above, particularly in HCP No.773 of 2004, order dated 06.10.2004, we are of the view that the Detaining Authority cannot be faulted in detaining the detenu under Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982 . A perusal of the materials found in the grounds of detention makes it clear that the conduct of the detenu certainly results in serious threat to public tranquility. As rightly observed by the Division Bench in HCP No.773 of 2004, it is only when such offences are not controlled, it would create distrust in the minds of the citizens as regards the police administration and would reflect very badly on the day-do-day life and free movement of the citizens in public places.
9. In the light of our discussion, we are unable to accept any one of the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner and we do not find any error or infirmity in the impugned order of detention. Habeas Corpus Petition fails and the same is dismissed.
JI.
To
1. The Secretary, Prohibition and Excise Department,Secretariat, Chennai 600 009.
2. The Commissioner of Police, Greater Chennai 3 The Superintendent, Central Prison, Chennai.
4. The Joint Secretary to Government, Public (Law and Order) Fort St. George, Chennai-9.
5. The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.