A. Nagaraj vs The Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department and The Commissioner of Police

P.D. Dinakaran, J.—Aggrieved by the order dated 20.11.2006, passed by the second respondent in 287/BDFGISSV/2006, branding one

Nagaraj as a Goonda and directing his detention u/s 3(1) of the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drug Offenders,

Forest Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders, Sand Offenders, Slum Grabbers and Video Pirates Act, 1982 (Tamil Nadu Act 14 of

1982), the petitioner/detenu has filed this writ petition seeking Writ of Habeas Corpus to set aside the same and to direct the respondents to

produce him before this Courta nd set him at liberty.

The order of detention dated 20.11.2006 came to be passed based on the ground case said to have taken place on 8.11.2006, which was

registered in Crime No. 747/2006 on the file of V1 Villivakkam Police Station for the offence punishable under Sections 392, r/w. 397, 427, 336

and 506(2) IPC, on the basis of a complaint lodged by one Saravanan. According to the complainant, he was running a mobile canteen and on

8.11.2006, at about 10.00 p.m. while he was attending to his business, the detenu came to his shop and demanded Rs. 100/- to take brandy.

When the complainant refused to give money, the detenu threatened him at the knife point and took away Rs. 1000/- from the shirt pocket and

also snatched his wrist watch. On hearing the hue and cry of the complainant, the public, who were at the spot, tried to apprehend the detenu. On

noticing the public, the detenu picked up stones and hurled the same towards them. On seeing his atrocious activities, the public ran to safer places

out of fear of danger, thereby the detenu created traffic dislocation and panic situation in that area. On the basis of the complaint, a case was

registered in Crime No. 747 of 2006 as stated above. During the course of investigation, the Inspector of Police arrested the detenu and produced

him before the Court for judicial remand.

The second respondent, taking note of the above case as a ground case and finding that there are six adverse cases pending against the detenu

for the offence punishable u/s 379 in Crime Nos. 1634/99, 564/2000, 294/2002, 21/2005, 476/2006 and 744/2006 on the file of various police

stations, 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.

The main contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner assailing the order of detention is that while all the adverse cases referred to in the

grounds of detention relate to the offence punishable u/s 379 I.P.C. (theft cases), the solitary instance of robbery mentioned in the ground case is

not relevant for sustaining the order of detention. The learned Counsel, in support of the said plea, relied upon the decision of the Apex Court in

Darpan Kumar Sharma alias Dharban Kumar Sharma v. State of Tamil Nadu (2003) 1 Crimes 446.

We have heard learned Additional Public Prosecutor on the above said point.

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. (Cri.)

306.

Admittedly, in the instant case, the adverse cases relate to the offence of theft punishable u/s 379 I.P.C. and the ground case relates to the

offence of robbery punishable u/s 392 read with 397 I.P.C. 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.

Hence, 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 is set aside and the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed. The detenu is directed to be released

forthwith, unless he is required in any other case.