A GEETHA Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Leave granted.

(2.) Appellant calls in question legality of the judgment rendered by a Division Bench of the Madras High Court dismissing the Habeas Corpus Writ Petition filed by A. Geetha wife of Anandaraj @ Anand @Anandan,(hereinafter referred to as the Detenu). The aforesaid detenu was detained under Section 3(2) of the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Forest Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders, Slum Grabbers and Video Pirates Act, 1982 (in short the Act). The order was passed on the basis of ground case in Crime No. 175 of 2005 for alleged commission of offences under Sections 3(1), 4(1), 5(1), 6(1) and 7(1) of the Act and Section 366 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short the IPC). The allegation against the detenu was that on 5.9.2005 at about 17.15 hours the Sub-Inspector of Police proceeded on rounds to watch whether any prostitution activity was going on at Vadapalani, Arcot Road, Chennai City. When he was so proceeding near Avichi School, he noticed that the detenu was sitting in a red colour Maruti car and doing prostitution business. The detaining authority took note of three other adverse cases wherein the detenu was involved in prostitution business. Offences as noted above related to keeping a brothel, living on the earnings of prostitution, procuring, inducing for the sake of prostitution, detaining women in premises where prostitution is carrying on and doing prostitution in the vicinity of public place and abducting women for prostitution which were punishable under the Act and IPC. The investigation revealed that the detenu used to get young innocent poor girls, who because of poverty were in search of employment from State of Andhra Pradesh under the guise of getting employment and induced and forced them to indulge in prostitution business and took house at Porur, Chennai and kept the procured girls there and at times he took them to different places in Chennai city in cars and forced them into prostitution and earn huge money with the help of his associates. The investigation further disclosed that the detenu and his associates were doing such prostitution business at various places and were spoiling lives of young persons. Considering these activities to be prejudicial to maintenance of public order and being of the view that recourse to normal criminal law would not have desired effect in preventing him from indulging in such activities which are prejudicial to maintenance of public order, the detaining authority passed the impugned order. The detenu was declared as an immoral traffic offender and was kept in custody at the Central Prison, Chennai. The order of detention was assailed by filing a habeas corpus petition before the Madras High Court. One of the major plank of the appellants argument was that the representation dated 25.9.2005 received by the detaining authority on 26.9.2005 had not been considered though the Government approved the order of detention only on 2.10.2005. It was submitted that the said representation was neither placed before the Advisory Board nor the Government and therefore the ultimate order passed by the detaining authority is liable to be set aside. The State with reference to the records produced contended that all the six representation submitted by the detenu and/or his relatives were placed before the Advisory Board as well as the Government and all of them were duly considered. It was also stated that even the pre-detention representation dated 15.9.2005 was duly considered. The High Court verified the records and came to the conclusion that all the representatives were placed before the Advisory Board as well as before the Government, were duly considered and rejected. It was pointed out that no new point was urged in the representation dated 25.9.2005 copy of which was annexed, even if it is accepted for the sake of argument that such a representation was made and it was held that since all the representations were duly considered, the detenu was in no way prejudiced. The High Court further found no substance in the plea that one of the adverse cases related to an offence punishable under Section 22 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (in short the NDPS Act) and since the same was more grievous offence, the possibility of coming out of bail was removed.

(3.) High Court noticed that the punishment under the NDPS Act depends upon the quantity of the material seized and in the absence of any details being furnished it cannot be said that possibility of coming out of bail was remote.