KANNIAPPAN Vs. DISTRICT MAGISTRATE AND DISTRICT COLLECTOR KARUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner's son is detained as a "goonda" under Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982 by detention order dt. 10-7-99. That order is successfully challenged before this Court in this writ petition on one ground and that is as follows:-

(2.) In the light of the arguments advanced by the learned counsel on either side, we perused the entire materials available on records as well as the case laws brought to our notice by the learned counsel on either side. The fact remains that the detenu is shown to have involved himself in an offence of murder, besides other offences. The records do show prima facie the alleged involvement of the detenue in the ground case, which is stated to have taken place on 5-6-99 for the offences punishable under Ss. 147, 148 and 307 of the IPC. In 1995 (1) Mad LW (Cri) 333, there were two adverse cases namely, one for the offence punishable under Ss. 323, 324, 326 and 452 of the IPC and the later one for the offences punishable under Ss. 147, 148, 341, 314, 506 (II) and 302 of the IPC. The ground case in that decided judgment was registered for the offences punishable under Ss. 341, 342, 427 and 506-II of the IPC. Going by the offences registered in the adverse cases as well as in the ground case, the learned Judges in that case went on to hold that the detaining authority should not only apply his mind to the facts available with reference to the ground case but also with reference to the facts available in the second adverse case, since the second adverse case in that case disclosed an offence of 302, IPC and when compared, the offence registered in the ground case were only minor in nature. We extract hereunder the conclusion of the learned Judge in that judgment :

(3.) The learned Additional Public Prosecutor's argument based on the recent judgment of this Court dt. 31-1-2000 in HCP No. 1043 of 1999 can be distinguished on the facts available in the case extracted above. In the latter judgment of this Court, the learned Judges have also adverted their mind to the judgment of this Court in 1995 Mad LW (Cri) 333. On facts the learned Judges found that in the earlier decided case, as against the offences registered namely 341, 342, 323, 427 and 506-II of the IPC in the ground case, an offence of 302, IPC was shown in the adverse case. That case was decided on the basis of the facts and circumstances available in that case. However, while deciding the latter case, the learned Judges took note of the fact that the ground case offence was 387, IPC and the adverse case offence was 307, IPC. and more or less both offences stand on the same footing in the manner of punishment. The learned Judges in that case were of the opinion that the failure to refer to the adverse case would not by itself show non-application of mind. In our opinion, both the judgments referred to above stand on the facts and circumstances available in each of those cases. But we find that the facts available in HCP No. 1043/99 referred to above so far as to registration of the offence is concerned, are not available in the case on hand. In fact the nature of the offences registered in the case on hand is more or less on par with the nature of the offences registered in the case decided by the earlier Division Bench of this Court namely, 1995 (1) Mad LW (Cri) 333.