Ranjith vs The State of Tamil Nadu

D. Murugesan, J.—The detenu himself is the petitioner, who has been branded as ''Goonda'' and detained 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) by the impugned order of detention dated 3.3.2008 passed by the

second respondent herein.

The petitioner has five adverse cases apart from the ground case to his credit, all on the file of Othakadai Police Station, Madurai District. The

first adverse case is in respect of Crime No. 94 of 1998 for the offence under Sections 147, 148, 302 IPC read with Section 3(ii)(v) of the

Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. The second, third and fourth adverse cases are in respect of Crime Nos.

456 of 2003, 611 of 2006 & 376 of 2006 for the offence under Sections 399 & 402 IPC and the fifth adverse case is in respect of Crime No.

377 of 2007 for the offence under Sections 341, 392 r/w 397 & 506(ii) IPC. So far as the ground case is concerned, a complaint was lodged by

one Malaichamy, S/o Rasu Thevar stating that on 27.2.2008 at about 8.00 hours, while the complainant was riding his bicycle near Sivalingam

Theatre, Othakadai, the petitioner waylaid and intimidated him at knife point and robbed a cash of Rs. 150/- from him. The petitioner showed the

knife towards public and threatened those who tried to catch him. On seeing this, the public ran helter-skelter in panic causing severe traffic jam in

that area. The platform vendors ran out of fear and an atmosphere of fear, danger and terror prevailed in the minds of the public. The said

complaint was registered in Crime No. 79 of 2008 for the offence under Sections 341, 392 r/w 397, 506(ii) IPC. As the sponsoring authority had

come across similar activities of the petitioner, which are prejudicial to the maintenance of public order, he had brought to the notice of the

detaining authority by filing an affidavit. After applying his mind to the materials placed before him, the detaining authority by the impugned order

dated 3.3.2008 has detained the petitioner.

The detention order is questioned by the petitioner on the following grounds:

(i) In the fifth adverse case, though it is shown that the petitioner was arrested on 8.9.2007, no material is placed before the detaining authority as

to whether the accused/detenu was remanded to custody. Failure to place either the remand report or the remand order would vitiate the detention

order.

(ii) Though the detaining authority has referred to the fact in paragraph-4 of the grounds of detention that the petitioner is a history sheeted rowdy,

no material is placed before the detaining authority in support of the said statement. In the absence of any material, the detaining authority could not

have referred to the fact that the petitioner is a history sheeted rowdy.

(iii) The petitioner had not filed any bail application before any Court in respect of the ground case and therefore there is no material before the

detaining authority to show that there is a possibility of the petitioner filing a bail application and coming out on bail. In the absence of any such

material, the awareness of the detaining authority that the petitioner may file a bail application and come out on bail shows his non-application of

mind and consequently vitiates the detention order.

(iv) Lastly, there is delay in disposal of the representation.

We have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondents.

So far as the first contention is concerned, the petitioner was arrested on 8.9.2007 in respect of the occurrence that took place on 7.9.2007.

Though the sponsoring authority has not placed the material as to whether the petitioner was remanded to custody or not, in our opinion, the fact

that the petitioner was arrested on 8.9.2007 in the fifth adverse case is only a referred document for the purpose of detaining authority to arrive at

the satisfaction that the petitioner had been indulging in activities which are prejudicial to the maintenance of public order and the non-placement of

the remand order by itself would not vitiate the detention order. In fact while arriving at the satisfaction as to whether the petitioner would file a bail

application, the detaining authority has correctly applied his mind only to the ground case and not to the fifth adverse case, presumably, in the

absence of any material before him. Hence the said contention is liable to be rejected and accordingly, it is rejected.

So far as the second contention is concerned, in paragraph-4 of the grounds of detention, the detaining authority has stated that ""it has been

brought to my notice that he is a history sheeted rowdy in Madurai, Othakadai Police Station H.S. No. 378/2005."" The contention of the learned

Counsel for petitioner is that for making such reference, the detaining authority was not furnished with the material. In paragraph-15 of the counter

affidavit, it is stated that as the History Sheet is the administrative and secret document maintained by the police, those papers were placed before

the detaining authority and the materials relating to the same were not furnished to the petitioner. From the above averments, it is seen that for

making a reference as to the petitioner being a history sheeted rowdy, the detaining authority was furnished with the materials and hence the

contention that there was no material cannot be accepted. As it is an administrative document, particularly kept in secrecy, the materials were not

furnished to the petitioner. The learned Counsel would rely upon an unreported decision of this Court in H.C.P.(MD) No. 178 of 2007 dated

12.7.2007 to contend that non-furnishing of the copy of the material would vitiate the order of detention. We have gone through the said decision

and we are of the view that the said decision is not applicable to the facts of this case. That was a case where the report of the Revenue Divisional

Officer was asked and the detaining authority had relied upon the said report before arriving at the subjective satisfaction and in that context, failure

to furnish the copy of the report of the Revenue Divisional Officer would vitiate the detention order. On the facts of this case, the materials relating

to the history sheet particulars of the petitioner were in fact placed before the detaining authority and were considered. Those materials were not

supplied to the petitioner only on the ground that they are administrative orders and are kept in secrecy. Therefore, in our considered view, the

judgment relied upon by the learned Counsel will not be of any assistance to this case. We are entirely in agreement with the stand taken by the

respondents in paragraph-15 of the counter affidavit relating to non-furnishing of the document to the petitioner. Even otherwise, it was only a

referred document and not a relied upon document. Hence the said contention is also rejected.

So far as the third contention is concerned, the detenu was arrested on 27.2.2008 and was remanded to custody and even during the period of

first remand, he was detained by the impugned order. In such circumstances, the detaining authority was right in arriving at the satisfaction that

there is a possibility of the petitioner filing a bail application and coming out on bail. In this context, the learned Counsel would rely upon a

judgment of this Court in N. Kanchana v. State (2007) 2 MLJ 1331 . That was a case where the detenu was implicated for an offence u/s 302

IPC. Therefore, the Bench has come to the conclusion that in the absence of any bail application, particularly, in a case where the accused was

implicated for Section 302 IPC offence, the awareness of the detaining authority that the detenu may file a bail application and the possibility of

coming out on bail was not supported by any material. However, on the facts of this case, we are not inclined to accept the contention of the

learned Counsel for petitioner, as the said judgment is entirely on different footing and on different set of facts.

So far as the last contention as to the delay, we have perused the proforma submitted by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor. The

representation dated 15.3.2008 was received by the Government on 18.3.2008. Remarks were called for on 19.3.2008 and the remarks were

received on 28.3.2008. Learned Counsel for the petitioner would submit that there is a delay in between 19.3.2008 and 28.3.2008. Between

19.3.2008 and 28.3.2008, there were three holidays viz., 21.3.2008, 22.3.2008 & 23.3.2008. Thereafter, the representation was received by the

Collectorate on 25.3.2008 and remarks were called for from the sponsoring authority on 27.3.2008 and they were received on the same day.

Again on the same day, the report was sent to the Government, which was received on 28.3.2008. Hence, there is no delay. So far as the

contention as to the delay in the files being dealt with by the Additional Secretary and the Minister for Prohibition and Excise between 1.4.2008 &

8.4.2008 is concerned, there are three holidays viz., 5.4.2008, 6.4.2008 and 7.4.2008. Hence the last contention as to the delay is also rejected.

For all the above reasons, the habeas corpus petition fails and it is, accordingly, dismissed.