N.Sengodan vs Secretary To Govt.Home Chennai & Ors

3. The relevant facts of the case are as follows:

5. On 9th February, 1998, the appellant made a written representation to the Secretary to Government of Tamil Nadu and sent it through the Superintendent, Central Prison, Salem. He raised several pleas in the representation. The Advisory Board established under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982, exercising its powers under the provisions of sub-section (2) of Section 12 of the said Act and addressing itself to all the facts and the connected records, having found nothing recommended for the revocation of detention order of the appellant. The Governor of Tamil Nadu, in view of the recommendation, revoked the order of detention and directed that the appellant be released forthwith by the Government Order Rt.No.636, Prohibition and Excise(XIV) Department, dated 3rd March, 1998.

6. According to the appellant, the above detention order was clamped by the respondents against him with a malafide intention of detaining the appellant under the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982 with a view to punish him. The 3rd respondent, Ramasamy, the then Inspector of Police, Fairlands Police Station had registered the said complaint given by 4th respondent Gopi in his Police Station Crime No.11/98 and the appellant was arrested in connection with the said crime and subsequently detained under the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982 for a period of two months till he was released by the order of the Advisory Board revoking the order of detention dated 3rd March, 1998. It is alleged that after the release from prison, there was no action from the part of the 3rd respondent for a long time and no charge sheet was filed against the appellant in the Police Station Crime No.11/98. Ultimately, a final report was filed which was received by the Judicial Magistrate No.V, Salem Court in the month of June, 2001 and the same has been accepted by the learned Magistrate and numbered as R.C.S.NO.19/2001 and the same was recorded. The appellant received the copy of the same on 29th June, 2001.

7. Further, the case of the appellant is that since he was subjected to harassment particularly by the 2nd respondent, V. Jegannathan, the then Inspector General and Commissioner of Police, Salem City; the 3rd respondent, the then Inspector of Police, Fairlands Police Station by undergoing imprisonment as a remand prisoner and as a detenu in Central Prison, Salem on the basis of a false case registered against him with the object of destroying his reputation and image. The appellant was very much affected both in body and mind. The appellant was also subjected to mental cruelty and was also physically affected as a result of the confinement in Central Prison, Salem. The family members of the appellant have also suffered physically and mentally due to malafide acts of the 2nd and 4th respondents. The Ist respondent has been arrayed as one of the respondents in view of the prayer for damages sought for in the writ petition.

8. The appellant served lawyer's notice dated 27th June, 2002 to all the respondents claiming damages in terms of money for a sum of Rs.10,00,000/-. The 2nd respondent, V. Jegannathan, the then Inspector General of Police forwarded a reply dated Ist July, 2002 to the lawyer's notice claiming immunity to his actions. The 4th respondent, Gopi also forwarded a reply by letter dated 24th July, 2002 claiming innocent and denying the allegation that he had any malafide intention to foist a case against him. No reply has been filed by both the 1st and 3rd respondents.

10. Further, according to the 2nd respondent, the order of detention issued by him was confirmed by the Government of Tamil Nadu in G.O.Rt.No.195, Prohibition and Excise Department dated 20th January, 1998. Before issuing the detention order on the basis of the report of the 3rd respondent, the concerned legal advisor was consulted by the 2nd respondent and only after he gave his opinion that the activities of the appellant would attract the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982 the detention order was issued. Therefore, according to the 2nd respondent, he issued the detention order in a bonafide manner and in exercise of power vested with him in his official capacity. The 2nd respondent further pleaded that he had no malafide intention and only on the basis of materials placed before him and being satisfied that it is just and essential to detain the appellant under the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982 he issued the detention order in a bonafide manner.

One Thiru.E.Gopi,the then Inspector of Police, Sooramangalam P.S. preferred a complaint at Fairlands Police Station on 6.1.98 to the effect that the statement given by Tr.Sengodan, a retired Inspector of Police and published in page No.2 of second edition of Malai Murasu dated: 8.12.97 was inciting the police personnel of Tamil Nadu to form an Association to fight for their likely rights and produced the paper cutting. The statement was likely to incite the police personnel who read it to form an Association to fight for their rights and made out the offences, punishable under Section 3 of the Police (Incitement to Disaffection) Act, 1922 and Section 505(1)(b) IPC. So a case in Fairlands P.S. Cr.No.11/98 under the abovesaid section, of law was registered and investigation was taken up.

23. On the same date, i.e., 7th January, 1998, 3rd respondent, Mr. M. Ramasamy, Inspector of Police, Fairlands Police Station, Salem City by an affidavit before the Inspector General and Commissioner of Police, Salem City requested to issue an order of detention under Section 3(2) of the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982. In the said letter 3rd respondent, M. Ramasamy shown himself as petitioner and the appellant-accused as the respondent. In the said affidavit he informed that he had come across the activities of the appellant, who retired from service on 31st October, 1997 and is known for his pro-Police Association activities even while he was in Government service and claimed himself to be the President of South Arcot District Police Association and, therefore, requested to detain him as he would indulge in such activities continuously unless he was detained under the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982. The affidavit dated 7th January, 1998 filed by the 3rd respondent, Mr. M. Ramasamy, the then Inspector of Police, Fairlands Police Station, Salem City reads as follows:

38. The 3rd respondent, M. Ramasamy, the then Inspector of Police, Fairlands Police Station, Salem City in his affidavit stated that the appellant who retired from service on 31st October, 1997 is known for his pro-police association activities even while he was in service. It was further stated that the appellant claimed to be the President of the South Arcot District Police Association while in service and is a self styled leader of Tamil Nadu Government Police Officials Union now. He further submitted by his affidavit dated 7th January, 1998 before the Inspector General and Commissioner of Police, Salem City and stated that the appellant was inciting the police personnel of Tamil Nadu to form an Association to fight for their rights and later he toured districts of Coimbatore, Tiruchirapalli, Pudukottai and Chennai City and incited the serving police personnel for forming an association and acted in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of the public order. It is also stated that the Inspector General and Commissioner of Police accepted the aforesaid stand taken by the other respondents.

41. In the present case, though there is no sufficient cause for the detention of the appellant, in the counter-affidavit filed by the Ist respondent, 2nd respondent, V.Jegannathan, the then Inspector General and Commissioner of Police, Salem City and the 3rd respondent, M. Ramasamy, the then Inspector of Police, Fairlands Police Station, Salem City, they have taken similar plea that the activities of the appellant in having instigating the police personnel by issuing a press statement to form an association of their own which was prejudicial to the maintenance of the public order. Again similar plea has been taken that the appellant was the President of South Arcot District Police Association and after retirement on 31st October, 1997 he floated a self styled Union, viz., Tamil Nadu Government Police Officials Union and there is a past history and present activities to show that he incited the police personnel to form an association of their own to fight for their rights against the Government. These statements made in the counter-affidavit are not based on the record and the justification given for detention clearly shows that the Ist respondent, 2nd respondent, V.Jegannathan, the then Inspector General and Commissioner of Police, Salem City and the 3rd respondent, M. Ramasamy, the then Inspector of Police, Fairlands Police Station, Salem City with an intention detained the appellant on 6th January, 1998 based on facts which were not in existence. The appellant had to remain in custody for more than two months on the basis of opinion given by the respondents based on facts which were not in existence.

4. Considering his past history and present activities inciting the police personnel to form an Association of their own to fight for their rights, I am of the opinion that the prevailing penal law is of no avail to curb his activities and with a view to prevent him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order, it is necessary to make an order of detention and the accused is a fit person to be detained as GOONDA under Tamil Nadu Act 14/1982.

I, therefore, request that necessary action may kindly be taken against him, under Tamil Nadu Act 14/1982, if deemed fit, by the Detaining Authority.

Further, after issuing the above press statement, Thiru N. Sengodan has toured the districts of Coimbatore, Tiruchenirappalli, Pudukottai and Chennai City and incited the service police personnel over formation of an Association, and acted in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. This is evident from the statements got recorded from the witnesses: (1) Thiru Ramachandran, PC 1804, Dheevattipatii P.S., (2) Thiru Duraisamy, H.C. 439, Hasthampatty P.S. (Crime).

appellant, in having instigated the police personnel by issue of press statement, to form an association of their own, are prejudicial to the maintenance of the public order;

vi) his past history and present activities in inciting the police personnel to form an Association of their own to fight for their rights and such activities are prejudicial to the maintenance of the police order which cannot be curtailed by prevailing penal law and, therefore, it was necessary to declare him "Goonda" for detention under the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982.”

42. We have noticed that the respondents have not even repented in taking wrong action, they have nowhere mentioned that the appellant was wrongly apprehended and taken in custody.

49. In view of the observation made above, though we do not give specific finding on mala fide action on the part of the Ist, 2nd, 3rd and 4th respondent but we hold that the respondent-State and its officers have grossly abused legal power to punish the appellant to destroy his reputation in a manner non-oriented by law by detaining him under the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982 in lodging a Criminal Case No.11/98 under Section 3 of the Police (Incitement to Disaffection) Act, 1992 and under Section 505(1)(b) of the IPC based on the wrong statements which were fully unwarranted.

51. In view of the finding aforesaid, we allow the appeal and impose a cost of Rs.2 lacs on the State of Tamil Nadu for payment in favour of the appellant. The respondents are directed to ensure the payment within two months. However, there shall be no separate order as to costs.