IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 3.1.2008 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.D.DINAKARAN AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.REGUPATHI Habeas Corpus Petition No.1618 of 2007 Kannan .. Petitioner Vs 1. State of Tamil Nadu rep. by its Secretary to Government Prohibition and Excise Department Fort St.George, Chennai-600 009. 2. The Commissioner of Police Greater Chennai Chennai. .. Respondents ----- Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issue of Writ of Habeas Corpus as stated therein. ----- For Petitioner : Mr.C.C.Chellappan For Respondents: Mr.N.R.Elango Addl. Public Prosecutor ----- O R D E R (Order of the Court was made by P.D.DINAKARAN,J.) The second respondent herein clamped an order of detention as against the petitioner/detenu – Kannan, son of Karuppusamy as the said authority arrived at the subjective satisfaction that the said detenu is a Goonda and he has to be detained under Section 3(1) of the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Forest Officers, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders, Sand Offenders, Slum Grabbers and Video Pirates Act, 1982 (Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982). https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2. Challenging the abovesaid detention, the petitioner himself has come forward with the present Habeas Corpus Petition seeking a writ of habeas corpus to call for the records pertaining to the detention order passed against the detenu by the second respondent in Proceedings No.370/2007, dated 20.9.2007, set aside the same and to direct the respondents to produce the body of the detenu, now detained at Central Prison, Chennai before this Court and set him at liberty. 3.1. The order of detention dated 20.9.2007 was passed on the basis of ground case in Crime No.511 of 2007 for alleged commission of offences under Sections 341, 294(b), 323, 506(ii) and 397 IPC, complaint of which was lodged by one Mani. According to the complainant, on 31.7.2007, while he was walking near Mangadu, K.K.Nagar to attend his work, the detenu herein and one Suresh came in a motorcycle and wrongfully restrained the complainant. Further, the said Suresh snatched a sum of Rs.610/- and cell phone and the detenu snatched wrist watch from the complainant at the knife point. On hearing the hue and cry of the complainant, the public at the spot came for his rescue. On seeing the public, the detenu and his associate threatened the public by brandishing knife and uttering filthy words. The public ran to safer places out of fear of danger to their lives and properties, and thus the detenu and his associate created terror and panic at the spot. In the melee, the detenu and his associate escaped from the spot. Based on the complaint given by the complainant, a case, as stated above, was registered. 3.2. The second respondent, taking note of the above case as a ground case and finding that there are ten adverse cases pending against the detenu in Crime No.1248/2006 on the file of Maduravoyal Police Station, Crime No. 1232/2007 on the file of R5 Virugambakkam Police Station, Crime Nos.730 and 812/2007 on the file of R9 Valasaravakkam Police Station, Crime No.479 on the file of T13 Kundrathur Police Station and Crime Nos. 497, 500, 501, 504 and 508 of 2007 on the file of T14 Mangadu Police Station for the offence punishable under Section 379 I.P.C., and having satisfied that there is a compelling necessity to detain him in order to prevent him from indulging in the activities which are prejudicial to the maintenance of public order, ordered his detention branding him as a Goonda. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner placing reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in DARPAN KUMAR SHARMA alias DHARBAN KUMAR SHARMA v. STATE OF TAMIL NADU [(2003) 1 CRIMES 446], contends that the said ten adverse cases relate to the offence punishable under Section 379 I.P.C., and therefore, the solitary https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ instance of robbery mentioned in the ground case is not relevant for sustaining the order of detention and hence, the impugned order of detention suffers on the ground of non-application of mind on the part of the detaining authority. 5. We have heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor on the above said point. 6. 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 as per the ground case attracts the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982. 7.1. In DARPAN KUMAR SHARMA alias DHARBAN KUMAR SHARMA v. STATE OF TAMIL NADU [(2003) 1 CRIMES 446], cited supra, whereunder the order of detention was based on the solitary instance of robbery, the Apex Court 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." 7.2. That apart, the above ratio laid down by the Apex Court was 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 TO GOVERNMENT, PROHIBITION AND EXCISE DEPARTMENT, GOVT. OF TAMIL NADU, CHENNAI, [(2004) M.L.J. (Crl.) 306]. 8. Admittedly, in the instant case, the adverse cases relate to the offence of theft punishable under Section 379, IPC and the ground case relates to the offence of robbery punishable under Section 397 IPC and hence, we are of the opinion that the ratio laid down in DARPAN KUMAR SHARMA's case, cited supra, squarely applies to the present case on hand, which is also not disputed by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 9. Applying the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in Darpan Kumar Sharma's case, cited supra, we are inclined to set aside the order of detention, Accordingly, the order of detention dated 20.9.2007 is set aside and the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed. The detenu Kannan is directed to be released forthwith, unless he is required in any other case. ATR Sd/- Asst. Registrar. /true copy/ Sub Asst. Registrar. To 1. The Secretary to Government Prohibition & Excise Department Secretariat, Chennai 9. 2. The Commissioner of Police Greater Chennai Chennai. 3. The Superintendent Central Prison Puzhal, Chennai. 4. The Joint Secretary to Government, Public (Law and Order) Department, Fort St. George, Chennai-9. 5. The Public Prosecutor High Court, Madras. Rsv (co) dv/11.1. HCP No.1618 of 2007 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/