SHANKAR Vs. INSPECTOR OF POLICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Writ Petition is filed by the detenu himself under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking for the issuance of a Writ of Habeas Corpus quashing the order of detention dated 27.11.1991 and to set him at liberty. The detenu came to adverse notice as a Goonda in view of the two cases referred to in the preamble of the grounds of detention and was detained on the basis of the ground case by the Commissioner of Police, Madras City, the second respondent herein in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Boot-leggers, Drug Offenders, Forest 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 him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order.

(2.) The facts of the ground case which led to the passing of the impugned order of detention are set out in detail in the grounds of detention which was served on the detenu and in view of the limited plea taken by the learned counsel for the petitioner, we do not propose to reiterate the same once again in this order. Though the learned counsel for the petitioner challenged the order on many grounds, he confined his arguments to the ground raised in the additional grounds and submitted that the adverse case number 2 is part and parcel of the ground case and that cannot be taken into consideration as an adverse case and if that is eschewed from the adverse cases, only the single case referred to as adverse Case No.1 remains, but to classify a person as a habitual criminal, a single incident or a single case is not sufficient and there should be more than one case to establish the habituality which is the main ingredient for holding the accused of satisfying the definition of the word TGoonda under Section 2(f) of Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982. It has to be noted that the learned Additional Public Prosecutor did not dispute this proposition. We have also already held in respect of a co-detenu who was detained under similar circumstances and on the basis of the same case in W.P. 3020 of 1992 that it has not been established that the detenu was a Tgoonda in view of the single case which is available and which has been referred to in the grounds of detention and, on the said ground since there is no material to hold that the detenu was a goonda, the order of detention cannot be sustained under Section 3( 1) of the said Act. The ratio laid down in the above decision squarely applies to the facts of this case. However, we also propose to deal with relevant facts which arc necessary for the disposal of this case. It is seen from the grounds of detention that only two adverse cases have been referred to. The second adverse case is also referred to along with the ground case which took place within 45 minutes from the incident referred to in adverse case number 2. It is seen that the second adverse case and the ground case form part of one transaction. It was only as a result of the incident which took place at about2l.45 hours wherein one Subbiah and his wife were attacked while coming on a motor-cycle, the detenu and his associates came to know of the said assault at about 10 P.M. and went to the hospital at about 10.30 P.M. this ground case incident took place. Therefore, adverse case incident number 2 and the ground case form one transaction and iris only on the basis of the same, the detenu was detained and detention order was passed. If the adverse case number 2 is excluded, we have got only the first adverse case referred to. This case was filed under section 341, 324 I.P.C. it was altered to 341, 326 IPC it was submitted that he was convicted and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 100/- and Rs. 500/- respectively. It is worthwhile to quote the definition of the word goonda as defined in Section 2(t) which reads as follows:

(3.) Applying the ratio to the facts of the instant case and in view of the definition of the word goondaT, we have no hesitation in holding that on the basis of a single incident, the detenu cannot be characterised as a goonda which is the main ingredient under Act 14 of 1982. When once the main ingredient is lacking, the impugned order under Section 3(1) of Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982 cannot be sustained.