Madras High Court
Latha vs State Rep. By Its Secretary on 9 March, 2006
Bench: P. Sathasivam, J.A.K. Sampathkumar
In the High Court of Judicature at Madras
Dated: 09/03/2006
Coram
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice P. SATHASIVAM
and
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice J.A.K. SAMPATHKUMAR
Habeas Corpus Petition No.1233 of 2005
Latha .. Petitioner
-Vs-
1. State rep. by its Secretary
to Government
Prohibition & Excise Department
Fort St. George
Chennai 600 009.
2. The Commissioner of Police
Greater Chennai
Egmore, Chennai 600 008. .. Respondents
Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
praying for issuance of writ of habeas corpus as stated therein.
For petitioner : Mr. S. Swamidoss Manokaran
For respondents : Mr. Abudukumar Rajarathinam
Govt., Advocate (Crl.)
:ORDER
(Order of the Court was made by P. SATHASIVAM,J.,) The petitioner by name Latha, challenges the impugned order of detention dated 26.10.2005, detaining the detenu George, her husband as "Goonda" under Section 3 (1) of the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Forest Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders and Slum Grabbers Act, 1982 (in short " Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982").
2. Heard Mr. S. Swamidoss Manokaran, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Abudukumar Rajarathinam, learned Government Advocate for the respondents.
3. At the foremost, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that there is a delay in disposal of the representation of the detenu dated 14.11.2005. The particulars furnished by the learned Government Advocate show that the representation of the detenu was received by the Government on 17.11.2005; remarks were called for on 18.11.2005; remarks were received by the Government on 21.11.2005; the file was submitted on 22.11.2005 and the same was dealt with by Under Secretary and Deputy Secretary on 22.11.2005. Finally, the Minister for Prohibition and Excise passed an order on 23.11.2005; rejection letter was prepared on 29.11.2005; rejection letter was sent to the detenu on the same day and served on the detenu on 30.11.2005. The learned counsel for the petitioner by pointing out that though the Minister has disposed of the representation of the detenu even on 23.11.2005, the Officials are not justified in taking time till 29.11.20 05 for preparation of the rejection letter. It is seen that there were public holidays and if we exclude the intervening holidays, we are satisfied that three days which is normally permissible between two stages has not been exceeded. Accordingly, it cannot be claimed that there is undue delay as contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner next contended that inasmuch as all the adverse cases relate to theft i.e., under Section 379 IPC, based on the solitary instance of the ground case dated 16.10.20 05, the conclusion of the detaining authority that his activities are prejudicial to the maintenance of public order cannot be sustained. In support of the above contention, he relied on the Division Bench decision of this Court dated 17.06.2003 made in HCP.No.2221 of 2002 ( Gopal @ Gopalakrishnan vs. Commissioner of Police, Greater Chennai, Chennai )and 2000 (4) MLJ (Crl.) 306 (Mala vs. Secretary to Government Prohibition and Excise Department, Government of Tamil Nadu, Chennai and another).
5. As regards the said contention, the learned Government Advocate pointed out that the first adverse case viz., Crime No.240 of 2002 on the file of Adambakkam Police Station , which took place on 21.06.2 002 relates to an offence under Sections 323, 324 and 506 (2) IPC. He also pointed out that the said case is pending trial in C.C.No.2074 of 2004. No doubt, the other adverse cases, i.e., serial Nos. 2 to 7 are theft cases under Section 379 IPC and all are under investigation. However, the ground occurrence relates to an incident that took place on 16.10.2005 and the offences charged are under Sections 341, 323, 392 and 506 (2) IPC in Crime No.2064 of 2005 pending on the file of J3 Guindy Police Station.
6. In HCP.No.2221 of 2002, their Lordships, following the case of Darpan Kumar Sharma vs. State of Tamil Nadu (2003 (1) CTC 382), considering the merits of the ground case, which is a solitary incident, quashed the detention order on the ground that no threat to maintenance of public peace of public order. On the same line, another Division Bench of this Court in the case of Mala vs. Secretary to Government Prohibition and Excise Department, Government of Tamil Nadu, Chennai and another (2000 (4) MLJ (Crl.) 306), quashed the detention order therein. We are of the view that both the decisions are distinguishable since in our case all the 7 adverse cases are not relating to mere theft under Section 379 IPC.
7. We have already referred to the fact that first adverse case in Crime No.240 of 2002 on the file of Adambakkam Police Station relates to the offences under Sections 323, 324 and 506 (2) IPC. The ground case relates to the offences under Sections 341, 323, 392 and 506 (2 ) IPC in Crime No.2064 of 2005 on the file of J3 Guindy Police Station. Further, the details furnished in para 3 of the grounds of detention show that while the complainant Iyyappan was proceeding by walk at Guindy-Alandur Road, in front of King Institute, the detenu and two others who came in a motor cycle wrongfully restrained and threatened him by uttering words in filthy language and asked him to hand over money he had. When the complainant Iyyappan questioned him, the detenu again by uttering words in filthy language, beat him on his cheek and took away Rs.140/- from his pocket. When the said Iyyappan raised a hue and cry, the public who were at the spot gathered there. Noticing the crowd, the detenu threatened them by uttering words in filthy language, due to which the public ran to take safe shelter in place out of fear for their life and property. The public who were standing at the nearby bus stop also ran for safe place out of fear of danger to their life. The public, who were proceeding in their vehicles feared to move further and turned back on the same direction from which they came, resulting in traffic dislocation in that area. Thus, the detenu and his associates not only threatened the complainant Iyyappan, but also the other public, passers by etc., If a person by wielding a knife or a pistol in a public place, threatens the public at large or goes to a commercial establishment and threatens the shop keepers and customers and commits violent acts which disturb the peace and tranquility of the area and which create an immediate sense of danger and alarm in the mind of those persons in the area, such an act may suffice to hold that it would have an adverse impact on the maintenance of public order.
In view of such materials that are available in the present case, the decisions referred to are distinguishable and not applicable to the case on hand.
8. On the other hand, in HCP.No.186 of 2004 dated 20.04.2004, wherein one of us (P. Sathasviam,J.) was a party, noticed the modus operandi of the detenu in the occurrence relating to the adverse case i.e., committing theft of two wheelers , mostly in the area of K.K. Nagar and the adjoining M.G.R. Nagar besides other places and that out of 1 2 adverse cases, seven cases related to K.K. Nagar and M.G.R. Nagar, which created a panic in the minds of the people in parking their two wheelers in the area. Considering the ground case of robbery, the Division Bench upheld the order of the detaining authority.
9. In HCP.No.688 of 2004 dated 23.09.2004, the Division Bench of this Court, after considering Darpan Kumar Sharma vs. State of Tamil Nadu (2003 (1) CTC 382) has held that the ratio of that judgment has to be applied only to the facts of that case and it cannot be held that there is no threat to public order. Not withstanding the fact that the detenu was involved in number of cases of theft, chain snatching and pick pocketing in public places. The very same Bench in HCP. No.773 of 2004 dated 06.10.2004, again referring Darpan Kumar Sharma's case (cited supra) held that such observation of the Supreme Court was made apparently only in the context of the facts of that case and the same cannot be applied in all cases without taking note of the facts of each case. We are in respectful agreement with the above mentioned three decisions of the Division Bench of this Court and unable to accept the contra argument made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. Further, as rightly pointed out, the recovery made pursuant to the confession statement and statement of witnesses/mahazar witnesses, remand order by the learned Magistrate and other documents available from pages 61 to 96 of the paper book supplied tot he detenu amply support the decision taken by the detaining authority.
10. Finally, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the contents of special report dated 25.10.2005 available at page 101 of the paper book have not been considered by the detaining authority and in the light of the details mentioned therein, the said report must be accompanied a covering letter clarifying the same and in the absence of the same, the impugned order is liable to the quashed. Here again, as rightly pointed out, the special report dated 25.10.2005 has not been relied on by the detaining authority. On the other hand, based on the affidavit of the sponsoring authority, remand order dated 17.10.2005, wherein IX Metropolitan Magistrate extended the judicial custody till 31.10.2005, all other relevant materials available relating to adverse cases as well as ground case, recovery on the basis of the confession statement, etc., the detaining authority passed the detention order, we are satisfied that there is no flaw or error in the procedure followed and the ultimate order passed by the detaining authority.
Under these circumstances,we do not find any valid ground for interference. Consequently, this petition fails and the same is dismissed.
kh To
1. The Secretary to Government Prohibition & Excise Department Fort St. George Chennai 600 009.
2. The Commissioner of Police Greater Chennai Egmore, Chennai 600 008.
3. The Superintendent Central Prison, Chennai.
4. The Director General of Police Chennai 4.
5. The Public Prosecutor High Court, Madras.