Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 1536 (MAD)

Anil Kumar v. State rep. By its Secretary

2003-09-29

A.R.RAMALINGAM, V.S.SIRPURKAR

body2003
Judgment :- V.S. SIRPURKAR, J. The challenge in this petition is to the order dated 25.11.2002 passed by the Commissioner of Police, Greater Chennai, branding one Anil Kumar, son of Joseph as a goonda and directing his preventive detention under Section 3(1) 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). 2. This detenu is shown to have been involved in three cases. They are under Sections 380, 379 and 457 r/w 380 I.P.C. Ultimately, he is said to have been involved in an incident dated 29.10.2002. at about 5.30 p.m. when he is said to have gone to the cold-drink shop of one Tr..Murugesan and demanded Rs.200/- to take brandy by uttering: "gpuhe;jp Fof;f ntz;Lk; vdf;F Rs.200/- khKy; bfhL" He is also supposed to have brandished a knife on which other persons came there and he threatened everyone by uttering the words: "vd;id gpof;f te;jhy;. btl;o tpLntd;" He is supposed to have caused terror in the locality and on that count, the detention order has been passed. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner points out that this was a detention practically on the single incident and it is not as if the detenu was a person who was a known rowdy or a known goonda or was involved in any such kind of incident wherein the public would be put to terror. Learned counsel relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court reported in JT 2003(1) SC 176 (DARPAN KUMAR SHARMA -vs- STATE OF TAMIL NADU). 4. We have gone through the judgment. The judgment applies on all fours to the present case. There also, the concerned detenu was booked only for the offence under Section 379 I.P.C which would have no concern with the causing alarm to the public and he was involved only in the singular incident wherein he tried to extract money from a shop vendor. The Supreme Court has, in paragraph 6 specified as follows: "In the present case, the three alleged incidents to which the commissioner of police has referred to are thefts arising under section 379 IPC and, therefore, there is only a solitary instance wherein the detenu is alleged to have robbed in a public place one Kumar. The Supreme Court has, in paragraph 6 specified as follows: "In the present case, the three alleged incidents to which the commissioner of police has referred to are thefts arising under section 379 IPC and, therefore, there is only a solitary instance wherein the detenu is alleged to have robbed in a public place one Kumar. Therefore, there is no material on record to show that the reach and potentiality of the single incident of robbery was so great as to disturb the even tempo or normal life of the community in the locality or disturb general peace and tranquility or create a sense of alarm and insecurity in the locality. 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 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. This ground is enough to quash the order of detention made by the respondents." 5. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor tries to point out before us that the present was a case where one incident itself was sufficient to disturb the public peace and public order. A reliance is made on the judgment reported in 2000 SCC (Crl) 708 (HASAN KHAN IBNE HAIDER KHAN -vs- R.H.MENDONCA). 6. However we do not find anything similar in the above mentioned case. There, while considering the difference between the public order and the law and order, the Court took into consideration that the appellant therein was a notorious goonda of the locality and with his associates moved about armed with deadly weapons and collected money from the residents and assaulted those who refused to pay. There is nothing of the sort alleged against the present detenu. There is nothing of the sort alleged against the present detenu. In that view, the judgment reported in JT 2003(1) SC 176 must apply on all fours to the present case. On this count alone, it is held that the single incident, on which the detaining authority has relied upon was not enough to disturb the public order and therefore, it could not be relied upon for ordering preventive detention. The petition succeeds. 7. The Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed. The order of detention dated 25.11.2002 is set aside. The detenu Anil Kumar, son of Joseph is directed to be released forthwith unless he is required in connection with any other case.