Senthil @ Senthilkumar and Others vs State of Tamil Nadu

S. Tamilvanan, J.—All the Habeas Corpus Petitions are filed against the detention order, dated 25.07.2008 passed by the second

respondent herein, detaining them as ""Goondas"" as per Section 2(f) of the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drug

Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders, Forest Offenders and Slum-Grabbers Act, 1982 (Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982), praying to quash

the detention order and set each one of the detenu at liberty.

The detenus in all the cases are arrayed as accused in the case in Cr. No. 759 of 2008 on the file of the F.5, Choolaimedu Police Station,

registered u/s 302 and other provisions of IPC, apart from the ground case. Against the petitioner/detenu in H.C.P. No. 1444 of 2008, one more

case in Cr. No. 439 of 2002 on the file of the E.4, Madhuravoyal Police Station u/s 302 and other sections of IPC is also pending as adverse

case.

As per the ground case, on 26.06.2008, when the Sub Inspector of Police attached to F.5 Choolaimedu Police Station was proceeding with his

police party on the 100 feet road, searching the accused persons involved in the case in Cr. No. 759 of 2008, on reliable information, Muthu @

Dimikki Muthu, detenu in H.C.P. No. 1444 of 2008, Prathap, detenu in H.C.P. No. 1445 of 2008, Senthil @ Senthilkumar, detenu in H.C.P.

No. 1439 of 2008, Selvam @ Periya Selvam, detenu in H.C.P. No. 1446 of 2008, Jayaraj @ Kullan, detenu in H.C.P. No. 1443 of 2008 and

Radhakrishnan @ Dayalan, detenu in H.C.P. No. 1441 of 2008 were standing in front of the TASMAC shop within the jurisdiction of the

Choolaimedu Police Station. Having noticed the same, police party surrounded them. While so, the detenu, Muthu @ Dimikki Muthu who was

armed with patta knife threatened the police party by uttering (Vernacular matter deleted) and the other detenus picked up stones from the road

side and pelted the same against the police party and the public, whereby damaged the public property, due to which, the public who were at the

spot on noticing the attack ran out of the place due to fear and danger to their lives and properties.

All the detenus herein created terror and panic in the minds of the public, at the spot. Muthu @ Dimikki Muthu by uttering, (Vernacular matter

deleted) rushed to stab Gr.I Police Constable 16586 Thiru. Ebenazer over his chest, but he tactfully escaped from the attack. The knife fell over

his left hand and caused bleeding injury, however the police party surrounded and apprehended Muthu @ Dimikki Muthu, Prathap, Senthil @

Senthilkumar, Selvam @ Periya Selvam, Jeyaraj @ Kullan and Radhakrishnan @ Dayalan at the spot. Later on, the police party retrieved the

knives from them and they were taken to F.5 Choolaimedu Police Station and the Special Report lodged by Sub Inspector, Inspector of Police,

Law and Order, F.5, Choolaimedu Police Station and registered a case in Cr. No. 761 of 2008 under Sections 147, 148, 336, 332, 307 and

506(ii) IPC. The detenus are accused in the said ground case and the case property recovered from them was produced before the XVII

Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai, who remanded them till 11.07.2008.

According to the Detaining Authority, the detenus are habituated in committing crimes and they have acted in a manner prejudicial to the

maintenance of the public order and as such, each one of the detenus is a ""Goonda"", as contemplated u/s 2(f) of the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982,

hence, on the materials placed before him, having subjective satisfaction, passed separate detention orders against each of the detenus on

25.07.2008.

Mr. B. Kumar, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the detention orders have been passed by the Detaining

Authority in a routine and casual manner at the instance of the third respondent, which is violative of Articles 14, 21 and 22 of the Constitution of

India. The grounds of detention of the detenus have not been intimated to the respective family members of the detenus. Though the detention

order was passed on 25.07.2008, grounds were served on the detenues only on 21.07.2008. According to the learned Senior Counsel, the

alleged offence could be construed only as a law and order problem and not an act, prejudicial to the maintenance of the public order. The

petitioners have stated that the order of detention is liable to be quashed, since the arrest report states that the accused were remanded and sent to

Judicial custody on 26.06.2008, whereas the grounds of detention denotes that the accused were remanded and sent to Judicial custody on

27.06.2008. The translated copy would reveal that the injury sustained by the said Ebenazer, Head Constable was only a scratch injury, whereas

the Accident Register mentions the injury as an incised one. With the above grounds, he pleaded for allowing the Habeas Corpus Petitions and to

set aside the impugned orders of detention.

Per contra, Mr. N.R. Elango, learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that it has been established that the detenus are habituated in

committing heinous crimes and their activities are prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. As per the adverse case, on 25.06.2008 at about

15 hrs, the detenus/accused, formed themselves into an unlawful assembly, armed with deadly weapons surrounded one Rajesh and committed his

brutal murder. On the complaint given by one Siva, an eye witness to the occurrence, this case was registered against the detenus u/s 302 and

other Sections of IPC. The case is under investigation. Muthu @ Dimikki Muthu, the detenu in H.C.P. No. 1444 of 2008 had already involved in

one more similar case in Cr. No. 439 of 2002 on the file of the E.4, Madhuravoyal Police Station, u/s 302 and other sections of IPC, for the

alleged occurrence that had taken place on 11.06.2008 at 10.15 hrs. Both are stated to be brutal murder cases. According to the learned

Additional Public Prosecutor, the detention orders have been passed as per law and as such, legally sustainable.

As per the ground case, on 26.06.2008, when the Sub Inspector of Police attached to F.5 Choolaimedu Police Station was proceeding with his

police party on the 100 feet road, searching for the accused persons involved in the ground case in Cr. No. 759 of 2008, on reliable information,

to the said 100 feet road, Senthil Nagar at 7.30 hrs, all the detenus who are accused in the said murder case were standing in front of a TASMAC

shop. When the police party surrounded them and tried to apprehend them, detenu Muthu @ Dimikki Muthu, who was armed with patta knife

threatened the police party along with other detenus. Muthu @ Dimikki Muthu attempted to attack Ebenezer, Gr.I Police Constable over his chest

by patta knife. However, he tactfully escaped from the attack, but received a bleeding injury on his left hand. The other detenus picked up stones

from the road side and hurled against the police officials and the public and subsequently, they were apprehended by police parties. The material

objects, including the patta knife were recovered from them under a mahazar. In support of the police case, Observation Mahazar, confession

statement, 161 statements given by various witnesses, rough sketch prepared at the scene of crime and other documents were prepared, as per

procedure. After they were arrested, they were produced before the XVII Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai, who remanded them to

judicial custody.

Mr. B. Kumar, learned Senior Counsel relied on the unreported decision of this Court made in H.C.P. No. 539 of 2008, dated 30.09.2008,

the referred case had been registered under the Prevention of Immoral Traffic Act and the vital contradiction regarding the alleged time of

occurrence, non-production of co-accused involved in the case registered u/s 8(b) of the Prevention of Immoral Traffic Act before the Judicial

Magistrate, either for remand or to any home, run by the State, created serious suspicion. In the instant case, the supporting materials placed

before the Detaining Authority expose the gravity of the offence and the compelling necessity to invoke Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982. Therefore, we

are of the view that the unreported Judgment of this Court, referred to above, is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of this case.

The Detaining Authority, considering the materials placed before him, having satisfied has passed the order of detention, dated 25.07.2008.

The Detaining Authority has specifically stated that there is compelling necessity to detain each one of the detenus, in order to prevent them from

indulging in such further activities, which are prejudicial to the maintenance of the public order under the provisions of Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982.

It is seen from the impugned order that there is no delay in passing the orders of detention. Similarly, copies of all relied on documents were

furnished to the detenus, so as to provide an opportunity for them make effective representation. The translated copies in the language known to

the detenus were also furnished to the detenus, without causing unreasonable delay. As per the special report, it is seen that all the detenus were

produced before the XVII Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai on 11.07.2008 by video conferencing and the remand has been extended

till 25.07.2008. The detention order has been passed only on 25.07.2008 and therefore, on the date of passing the detention order, there was

valid remand order against the detenus. We are of the considered view that the alleged trivial contradictions do not vitiate the detention order, as

the offence is serious in nature and has been prejudicial to the maintenance of public order.

The Hon''ble Supreme Court has ruled in the decision, State of Maharashtra v. Bhaurao Punjabrao Gawande reported in 2008 (2) SCC (Cri)

128, that subjective satisfaction, being a condition precedent for the exercise of the power of preventive detention conferred on the executive, the

court can always examine whether the requisite satisfaction is arrived at by the authority; it is not, the condition precedent to the exercise of the

power would not be fulfilled and the exercise of the power would be bad. However, the court cannot go into correctness or otherwise of the facts

stated or allegations levelled in the grounds in support of detention. The Hon''ble Apex Court has given the following Grounds of challenge, relating

to detention orders:

An order of detention can be challenged on certain grounds, such as, the order is not passed by the competent authority; condition precedent for

the exercise of power does not exist; subjective satisfaction arrived at by the detaining authority is irrational; the order is mala fide; there is non-

application of mind on the part of the detaining authority in passing the order; the grounds are, or one of the grounds is, vague, indefinite, irrelevant,

extraneous, non-existent or stale; the order is belated; the person against whom an order is passed is already in jail; the order is punitive in nature;

the order is not approved by the State/Central Government as required by law; failure to refer the case of the detenu to the Board constituted

under the statute; the order was quashed/revoked and again a fresh order of detention was made without new facts, etc.

The Hon''ble Apex Court in the decision, Union of India v. Ranu Bhandari reported in 2008 (6) SCC 601, having relied on its various earlier

decisions regarding the compliance of Article 22(5) of the Constitution held that although the State is empowered to issue orders of preventive

detention, since the liberty of an individual was in question, such power should be exercised by the Detaining Authority on consideration of relevant

material, both against and in favour of the individual concerned, to arrive at a just conclusion that his detention was necessary in the interest of the

pubic and to prevent him from continuing to indulge in activities which are against the public interest and the interest of the State.

In the instant case, copies of all the relied on documents were supplied to the detenus. The materials placed before the Detaining Authority

would show that two brutal murder cases are pending against Muthu @ Dimikki Muthu, detenu in H.C.P. No. 1444 of 2008 and one such murder

case is pending against the other detenus. On a perusal of the impugned orders, we are of the considered view that the Detaining Authority has

considered all the relevant materials placed before him and held that the activities of the detenus were prejudicial to the maintenance of the public

order and that there was a compelling necessity to detain them under Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982. In the light of the decisions referred to above,

we are of the view that there is no procedural violation in the impugned orders passed by the Detaining Authority, so as to warrant the interference

of this Court and we are of the considered view that the alleged grounds raised by the detenus do not vitiate the detention order, so as to quash the

same.

As there are prima facie materials placed before the Detaining Authority to have subjective satisfaction and the detaining authority, considering

the same has held that the activities of the detenus are prejudicial to the maintenance of public order and there was compelling necessity to detain

them under Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982. All the mandatory provisions have been complied with by the authorities concerned. Hence, we are of the

view that all these Habeas Corpus Petitions fail and as such are liable to be dismissed.

In the result, the Habeas Corpus Petitions in H.C.P. Nos. 1439, 1441, 1443, 1444, 1445 and 1446 of 2008 are dismissed. No costs.