LAKSHMI Vs. POLICE COMMR EGMORE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India by the wife of the detenu is for the issue of a writ of Habeas Corpus and is directed against the order of detention passed by the first respondent in the exercise of powers conferred under Sec. 3(1) of the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders and Slum Grabbers Act 1982 (Act 14 of 1982), hereinafter referred to as the Act.

(2.) The first respondent, Commissioner of Police, Madras City, passed the impugned order under S. 3(1) of the Act, on 29-10-1984 directing the detention of the detenu on the ground that the detenu is a habitual criminal, that he is a goonda and that he has acted in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. The order of detention was served on the detenu on 30-10-1984, at the Central Prison, Salem. The order of detention has been approved by the Government on 9-11-1984. The detenu sent a representation through the Superintendent of Central Prison, Salem, on 9-11-1984, and it was received by the Government on 17-11-1984, and a copy of it was forwarded to the Commissioner of Police for remarks, which was received by the Government on 26-11-1984. The representation was rejected by the Government after a careful consideration on 3-12-1984. That order rejecting the representation was served on the detenu. The detenu again sent another representation on 4-12-1984, which was received by the Government on 10-12-1984, through the Superintendent, Central Prison, Salem. The Government again carefully considered the representation and rejected it on 31-12-1984.

(3.) The detaining authority has cited about seven instances which range from the year 1974 to 1980 to show that the detenu is a habitual criminal and is a goonda. The ground on which the detenu, Kalian alias Raju, has been detained is stated thus : On 31-7-1984, at about 4.30 p. m. the detenu and his wife, Lakshmi alias Radha, along with their female baby came to the shop of Nathan Jewellers situate at No. 154 N. S. C. Bose Road, Madras 1. At that time one Mohanakrishnan, Accountant in the said jewellery shop, was examining a gold bangle. The detenu and his wife told him that they wanted to purchase a gold ring. He kept the gold bangle on the table and took put a set of gold rings and showed them to the detenu and his wife. The detenu and his wife, after examining the gold rings, returned them saying that they were not satisfied with them and left the shop. But, Mohanakrishnan, found that the gold bangle kept by him on the table was missing. Immediately, Mohanakrishnan came out of the shop, shouted at Kalian and Lakshmi and asked them to stop. But, both of them took to their heels and thereupon Mohanakrishnan raised an alarm and on hearing his cries, the passers-by stopped and looked at the culprits who were fleeing. But Mohanakrishnan gave a chase and he was obstructed by the brickbats hurled at him by the detenu and his wife. When he kept on chasing the detenu and his wife, the detenu threatened him with dire consequences. The passers-by got frightened and ran away in fear. The shop-keepers closed their shops and the traffic was dislocated. At that time a police party consisting of a Sub Inspector and two constables came that way and tried to apprehend the detenu and his wife. But the detenu also threatened the police party saying that he would murder them if they did not leave the place. But one of the constables caught hold of Lakshmi with the baby and on seeing his wife being apprehended, the detenu did not attempt to run. A complaint was given by Mohanakrishnan and a case was registered against the detenu and his wife and they were lodged at the Central Prison, Madras, on remand by the VIII Metropolitan Magistrate. The detaining authority was of the view that if the detenu is let to remain at large, he will indulge in further activities prejudicial to the maintenance of public order and the recourse to normal criminal law would not have the desired effect of effectively preventing him from indulging in activities prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. Therefore he passed the impugned order detaining the detenu.