PANDURANGAN Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition has been filed by the detenu himself under Art.226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ of Habeas Corpus directing the respondents to produce the petitioner before Court and set him at liberty.

(2.) In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-s. (1) of S. 3 of the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drugs Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders and Slum Grabbers Act 1982 (Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982, hereinafter referred to as the Act, with a view to preventing the petitioner from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order, the Commissioner of police, Madras City, the second respondent, passed the impugned order. The detenu came to the adverse notice as a goonda in view of 15 adverse cases referred to in the preamble to the grounds of detention and has been detained on the ground case dated 17-1-1990. Though several grounds were raised in the petition, the learned counsel for the petitioner confined her arguments on only one ground, namely, the ground case would at the most come under the category of law and order problem and at no stretch of imagination it can be mentioned that he acted in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order, and therefore the order is liable to be quashed. It is seen from the various adverse cases that from 4-2-1989 to 7-1-1990 the detenu was involved in various cases for committing offences of house trespass and theft in dwelling houses by breaking open the front door. Charge-sheets have been laid for various offences u/Ss.457, 380, 511 and 75, IPC. It is seen that he is also an old offender. It is now represented that those cases were pending at the time of passing of the impugned order and subsequently he pleaded guilty and he was convicted in all those cases and sentenced to imprisonment ranging upto one year. In the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the second respondent it is stated in para 9 that it is not correct to say that the ground case would come under the purview of law and order and not under public order. It is also stated that the petitioner along with his associates not only committed robbery but also threatened one Balu, the owner of the property at the point of knife with dire consequences, hurled jelly stones over Balu and others who were chasing him and later when the police party came, they were also threatened with dire consequences by the detenu and thereby created terror and panic as disclosed in the grounds of detention.

(3.) The facts involved in the ground case as disclosed from the grounds of detention are briefly as follows : One Balu was returning from Mount Road at about 7.15 P.M. on 17- 1 - 1990. He noticed the, detenu and another Mohamed Ali standing, at the junction of Marshall Road and Montieth Road. Though in the first instance the detenu and Mohamed Ali called Balu and asked him whether it is the way to go to Woodlands Theatre, when Balu showed them the way to the theatre, the associate of the detenu asked Balu as to whether he was having a match box. When he replied in the negative, the detenu asked the said Balu as to the contents of his pocket. When Balu replied that he did not have anything in his pocket. the detenu and his associate caught hold of Balu and the Associate removed Rs. 25/- from his pocket and the detenu removed his gold ring weighing 1/2 sovereigns from his left hand. While committing robbery. Balu raised a hue and cry. The detenu as well as his associate took out a pen knife and terrorised Balu by saying that he would be stabbed. Balu became panicky. It is stated that the detenu terrorised Balu by holding the knife over his stomach. They further terrorised Balu and asked him to run away without turning. Balu noticed one Ravi and Vadivelu at that time and he requested to help him. When all the three joined together and rushed to apprehend the detenu and his associate, they in front of the Airlines Office picked up jelly stones which were kept on the road and pelted the same at Balu and others saying that they would stab and remove the intestine if they have come near to catch them. Balu and others did not do anything. One of the jelly stones pelted by Mohamed Ali caused an injury to Balu over his left side chest and he suffered pain due to the attack. The detenu and his associate, by brandishing the knife against Balu and others, terrorised them. They also moved here and there and terrorised every one at the spot. The public who were proceeding on the road side having noticed the atrocious activities of the detenu and his associate, feared danger to their life and property and moved here and there. The cyclists who were crossing the road side having noticed the atrocious activities of the detenu and his associate feared danger to their life and property and turned back in the same direction. Mohamed Ali and the detenu terrorised the public at the spot by saying they were standing and witnessing and that they should run away. The public who were at the spot ran away. Having noticed the atrocious activities of the detenu and his association, a tender coconut vendor feared danger and abandoned his pulling cart and ran away. A police party consisting of Head Constable Chelliah and others, who were proceeding on best duty, noticed the atrocious activities of the detenu and his associate Mohamed Ali and they rushed to apprehend the culprits. The detenu and his associate terrorised the police party also with dire consequences. The police party with the assistance of the Balu and others, apprehended the detenu and Mohamed Ali and later brought them to the police station. The police party seized the ring and Rs. 25/- as well as the knives. A case in Cr. No. 103 of 1990 under Sections 392 read with 397, 394, 336 and 506(II), I.P.C. of F. 2 Egmore Police Station was registered on the complaint of Balu.