SARASWATHI Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU REP. BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY, PROHIBITION AND EXCISE DEPT., MADRAS,

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SARASWATHI , the Petitioner herein, impugns an order of detention passed under the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders and Slum Grabbers Act, 1982 (hereinafter called the Act), against her son one Balan, by the Commissioner of Police, Madras city, the second Respondent herein, and confirmed by the State of Tamil Nadu, the first Respondent, and seeks the issue of a writ of habeas corpus for securing the release of her son.

(2.) THE impugned order of detention has been passed by the second Respondent on 30th June, 1984, and was served on the detenu who was already in remand pursuant to his arrest in Crime No. 457 of 1984 under Ss. 379, 336 (II) I.P.C. of C -1 Flower Bazar Police Station. The grounds of detention were furnished to him. His case was referred to the Advisory Board, but the Board saw no reason to recommend the release of the detenu. Thereafter, the Petitioner has filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

(3.) IN the grounds of detention three cases under Section 379, I.P.C. in which the detenu was convicted have been referred to as materials which had brought him to the adverse notice of the second Respondent. The ground then proceeds to give the details of the specific instance on the basis of which the second Respondent deemed it proper to pass the impugned order of detention. It is stated that at about 4.30 p.m. on 26th June, 1984, the detenu's associate one Ravi alias Aranthavai picked the pocket of one Sundaram who was boarding a bus at the Rattan Bazar bus stops. Sundaram raised an alarm and at once Ravi handed over the stolen money purse containing in it Rs. 31.50 np. to the detenu. Then, the detenu and Ravi started running along the road. Sundaram gave a chase to them and appealed to the members of the public to catch hold of the pick pockets. But the detenu and Ravi are said to have threatened the passers by not to come near. In order to terrify the members of the public the detenu and his associate are said to have picked up some bottles from bunk shops situate en route and broken them on the road. Eventually when the two culprits were overpowered by a police patrolling party coming in the opposite direction and the stolen money purse was recovered from the detenu. Thereafter, a case was registered against the two culprits and it is with reference to this instance the order of detention has been passed. The second Respondent has stated that the conduct of the detenu on the day in question clearly resulted in disruption of public order and as such if he were allowed to remain at large he would indulge in acts endangering public safety and maintenance of public order. The second Respondent also has stated that the normal course of law for the offence committed by the detenu would not be adequate to preserve public order and, as such, an order of preventive detention is called for.