SUMAN Vs. STATE OF TAMILNADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Habeas Corpus petition has been filed by the detenu himself, who has been detained under 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), hereinafter referred to as "the Act", by order dated 18.2.2004, passed by Respondent No.2.

(2.) THE grounds of detention is based on the incident dated 24.1.2004 and the two adverse cases noticed by the detaining authority had occurred on 11.9.2001 and 29.3.2003. In the first adverse case dated 11.9.2001, the allegation is that the detenu and his 5 associates formed an unlawful assembly with a common object of damaging a bus and in furtherance of their common object, they damaged the front and rear wind screen glasses, side glasses, head light with casuarina sticks and thereby caused damages to the tune of Rs.20,950/- and "they also assaulted the witness and caused injuries". On the basis of the aforesaid allegation, a case has been registered in Manalmedu P.S Cr.No.453/2001 under Sections, 147, 323 IPC and 3(1) of the Tamil Nadu Property (Prevention of Damage and Loss) Act, 1992. In the second adverse case dated 29.3.2003, the allegation is that the detenu and his 3 associates attacked one Dhanasekaran with veecharuval due to previous enmity and caused the death in pursuance of their common intention. A case has been registered in Cr.No.178/2003 under Sections 449, 302 r/w.34 IPC. In the ground case dated 24.1.2004, it is alleged that the detenu and his 3 associates criminally intimidated the public and vendors demanding mamool by threatening that they were already involved in the cases like murder and robbery and " that in order to conduct such cases and other expenses they should part with money" and they subsequently threatened the persons with weapons like vicharuval and country made bombs. It is further alleged that "THEn one of his associate Thiru. Subash forcibly robbed Rs.150/- from the pocket of the complainant and another associate Thiru. Padaleeswaran forcibly robbed Rs.200/- from Thiru. Chandrasekaran". All the accused persons also chased the witnesses and threatened them. A case has been registered under Sections 392, 507(ii) r/w. 397 IPC and 27(1) Arms Act of 1959, 9(b)(1) Explosives Act, 1884 and 4(1), 5 of Explosive Substances Act, 1908. Incidentally it may be pointed out that three associates of the present petitioner were also detained under preventive detention by separate orders passed by the very same Collector on the very same day and out of the other three, as per the advice of the Advisory Board, the detenues Javankumar and Padaleeswaran have been released.

(3.) ON a careful consideration of the aforesaid submission, we do not think that the contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner can be accepted. While we accept the contention that there should be "territorial nexus" in the matter relating to preventive detention passed by the District Magistrate or the Commissioner of Police of a particular district or area concerned, it cannot be said "all the incidents" on the basis of which the order is passed must have occurred within the territorial jurisdiction of the concerned detaining authority. Of course, it cannot be denied that there should be some territorial nexus, but such nexus cannot be confined to the narrow limits suggested by the learned counsel for the petitioner. To illustrate the point, supposing the detenu is a resident of a different district and has committed all the alleged crimes in the districts other than the one under the territorial jurisdiction of the concerned authority, obviously, the Collector of such district is not authorised to pass an order of preventive detention, because none of the cause of action arose within the jurisdiction of such Collector. ON the other hand, however, if such a person, who is a resident of some other district and has committed crimes in other districts, comes within the territorial jurisdiction of a particular jurisdiction of a district Collector, such Collector, if he is satisfied on the basis of the incidents in respect of other districts, can pass an order of preventive detention. Similarly, if the ground case has occurred within the jurisdiction of a particular district, as in this case, even though adverse incidents had occurred beyond the jurisdiction, the Collector is not powerless to pass an order of preventive detention. What is required is that there should be some reasonable nexus with the territorial jurisdiction of the concerned authority and depending upon the facts and circumstances of a particular case, the order of preventive detention can be passed.