Kumar alias Bakkan and Others vs The Inspector General of Police and Others

K.M. Natarajan, J.—These petitions arose out of detention orders passed in respect of one and the same ground case. Since the detention orders were challenged by the learned Counsel on the same ground, the petitions are clubbed together and a common order is passed.

The respective Petitioner in the petitions are the detenus themselves. In H.C.P. No. 63 of 1992, the Petitioner came to the adverse notice on the basis of the 8 cases referred in the preamble of the grounds of detention: and the Petitioners in H.C.P. Nos. 76 and 79 of 1992 came to the adverse notice on the basis of the 5 cases referred to in the preamble of the respective grounds of detention. The Petitioners were detained on the basis of the same ground case, by separate detention orders passed by the Inspector General of Police (Law and Order) and Commissioner of Police, Madras City (in charge), Madras, the first Respondent herein, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub.S.(1) of S. 3 of the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers. Drug Offenders, Forest Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders and Slum Grabbers Act, 1982 (Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982) with a view to preventing them from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public Order. The facts which lead to the passing of the detention orders have been set out in detail in the grounds of detention and they were duly served on the detenus and hence we do not propose to reiterate the same especially in view of the limited plea taken by the learned Counsel, except those that are necessary for the disposal of the petitions. Though the detention orders have been challenged on many grounds mentioned in the affidavits, the learned Counsel for the Petitioners mainly relied on one ground, namely, the facts referred to in the grounds case would not attract the order of detention under Act 14 of 1982 as it would not amount to prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. He contended that the acts referred to in the ground case would amount to law and order and not public order and it can effectively be prevented by applying the normal criminal law of the land and that an order of detention under Act 14 of 1992 is not warranted. For appreciating the contentions of the learned Counsel, it is worthwhile to consider the ground case which is common in all the petitions. One P. Narasimma Rao, a film broker, was residing at 61 Ellaiamman Koil Street, West Mambalam, Madras-33. He was walking at about 13.30 hours on 26.4,1992 through Gomathi Narayanansami Road, near Jeeva Park, towards Gemini. At that time, the detenus in all the three petitions appeared from a bush and came near the said Narasimma Rao. They were all armed with button knives. The detenu Kumar kept the button knife at the chest of Narasimma Rao and uttered shouts to the effect that if he raised noise, he would be killed, and asked him as to what he was having in his pocket. So saying, he snatched cash of Rs. 95/-from his shirt pocket. At the same time, the detenu Devaraj, who was standing at the right side of Narasimma Rao kept the button knife on his neck. The detenu Mahendran who was standing on the left side, kept the button knife on his left hip. All the three detenus threatened Narasimma Rao by uttering that if he raised noise, he would be killed. In the meantime, the detenu Devaraj snatched away the Always wrist watch from the left hand of Narasimma Rao, though he prevented him from snatching the wrist watch. The detenu Devaraj stabbed him on his right forearm. Narasimma Rao sustained injury and raised an alarm saying, "Leave me and not to harm me". Then all the three detenus started proceeding. At that time several public came in the opposite direction. On seeing them, the detenus tried to escape from that place. Immediately Narasimma Rao shouted "thief, thief, catch him", and hearing the shouts, Suresh and Rajendran came to the rescue of Narasimma Rao. However, the detenu Kumar attempted to stab Narasimma Rao on his neck by shouting that he should die. Narasimma Rao warded off the attack, and the knife hit Narasimma Rao on the right forearm and he sustained a bleeding injury. Then the three detenus took syrub bottles from a mobile cool drinks cart owned by one Ramu, and hurled the same towards Narasimma Rao and others. The syrub bottles fell on the road and broke into pieces. The broken pieces scattered all over the area. On seeing the atrocious activities of the detenus, the public who came on their cycles, motor cycles and other vehicles feared danger to their lives and properties and turned back with their vehicles and spread away in the same direction where from they came. The three detenus further threatened Narasimma Rao and others that if anybody came near, he would be killed. On seeing the atrocious activities, the public including women and children ran helter-skelter for safer places. The traffic at that place was completely dislocated. At that time, Pulliah and Ravanaiah, belonging to cinema stunt party, came in a van and quickly surrounded the three detenus and apprehended them. They tied the hands of the detenus with their own shirts to their back and seized the button knives from them and handed over the same to Narasimma Rao. They also recovered the stolen wrist watch and cash of Rs. 95/-. Some Ravanaiah and Pullaiah had some emergency work, they handed over the detenus and the properties to Narasimma Rao and others and left the place in their van. thereupon the detenus were brought to R-4 Pondy Bazaar Police Station along with the properties and a complaint was lodged. The Inspector of Police registered a case in R-4 Pondy Bazaar Police Station in Crime No. 469 of 1992 under Ss.397, 336 and 506 (ii) read with Section 34 I.P.C. The case was investigated. After taking necessary action and observing all the formalities, they were detained. The detaining authority arrived at the subjective satisfaction that there is imminent possibility that the detenus would come out on bail in respect of the offences under Ss.397, 336 and 506(ii) read with Section 34 I.P.C. and if they come out on bail, they will indulge in further activities which will be prejudicial to the maintenance of public order and that the recourse to normal criminal law would not have the desired effect of effectively preventing him from indulging in such activities which are prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. Hence the detaining authority was satisfied that in view of the antecedent activities of the detenus which are proximate in point of time, there is compelling necessity to detain them in order to prevent them from indulging in acts which are prejudicial to the maintenance of public order under the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982. On a careful consideration of the entire facts narrated above, there is no doubt that the activities of the detenus would amount to prejudicial to the public order and that it is not a mere law and order problem as contended by the learned Counsel for the Petitioners. The decision cited by the learned Counsel for the Petitioners, reported in Shankar v. Inspector of Police and Ors. (1992 (3) Crimes 486) is not helpful to the case of the Petitioners as in the above case there was a single adverse case. This Court held that on the basis of the single incident, the detenu cannot be characterised as Goonda. The ground case and the second adverse case formed part of one transaction and hence this Court held that the detenu in that case cannot be considered as a habitual offender so as a to warrant detention under Act 14 of 1982. On the facts and circumstances of that case, it was held that the order of detention is not sustainable. Per contra, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor drew our attention to the decision of the apex court reported in Harpreet Kaur v. State of Maharashtra (1992 S.C.C. (Crl) 370) wherein it was held:

It is the degree and extent of the reach of the objectionable activity upon the society which is vital for considering the question whether a man has committed only a breach of ''law and order'' or has acted in a manner likely to cause disturbance to ''public order''. It is the potentiality of the act to disturb the even tempo of life of the community which makes it prejudicial to the maintenance of ''public order''. Whenever an order of detention is questioned, the courts apply these tests of find out whether the objectionable activities upon which the order of detention is grounded full under the classification of being prejudicial to ''public order'' or belong to the category of being prejudicial only to ''law and order''. An order of detention under the Act would be valid if the activities of a detenu affect ''public order'' but would not be so whether the same affect only the maintenance of ''law and order''. Facts of each case have, therefore, to be carefully scrutinised to test the validity of an order of detention.

Crime is a revolt against the whole society and an attack on the civilisation of the day. Order is the basic need of any organised civilised society and any attempt to disturb that order effects the society and the community. The distinction between breach of ''law and order'' and disturbance of ''public order'' is one of degree and the extent of reach of the activity in question upon the society. In their essential quality, the activities which affect ''law and order'' and those which disturb ''public order'' may not be different but in their potentiality and effect upon even tempo of the society and public tranquillity there is a vast difference. In each case, therefore, the courts have to see the length, magnitude and intensity of the questionable activities of a person to find out whether his activities are prejudicial to maintenance of ''public order'' or only ''law and order''.

The objectionable activities of a detenu have, therefore, to be judged in the totality of the circumstances to find out whether those activities have any prejudicial effect on the society as a whole or not. If the society, and not only an individual, suffers on account of the questionable activities of a person, then those activities are prejudicial to the maintenance of ''public order'' and are not merely prejudicial to the maintenance of ''law and order''. (para 25)

The ratio laid down in the above quoted decision applies to the facts of this case. We have no hesitation in holding that the activities of the detenus in these petitions, on the facts of the ground case, would not amount to law and order; but on the other hand, it is a case of prejudicial to public order. The Court has to consider the length, magnitude and intensity of the questionable activities of the detenus. The detaining authority considered the nature of the activities of the detenus and arrived at the subjective satisfaction that there was compelling necessity to pass the detention orders with regard to the detenus. We do not find any infirmity or illegality in the detention orders. No other point is urged in the petitions.

In the result, all the three petitions are dismissed.