GANESAN ALIAS VENKATA GANESAN ALIAS MISA GANESAN, DETENUE, CENTRAL PRISON, MADRAS Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU, REP. BY COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY, PROHIBITION AND EXCISE DEPT, MADRAS,

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an unusual case where a detention order has been passed under the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders and Slum Grabbers Act, 1982 (Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982) hereinafter referred to as the Act, for the third time, in almost quick succession after the expiry of the detention period of the earlier order was over. The Petitioner has filed this petition to secure his release by means of a writ of habeas corpus issued to the Respondents.

(2.) THE detention order in question has been passed by the second Respondent on 10th December, 1984. It was served on the Petitioner who was already on remand. In the grounds of detention it is stated that the Petitioner was a habitual offender committing offences punishable under Chapter XVI and XVII of the Indian Penal Code and had, therefore, been categorised as a goonda by the authorities, and to prevent him from indulging in further acts in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order, he was detained under Act 14 of 1982, on 9th February, 1982 by means of a detention order. After the detention period of one year was over, the Petitioner was released. Again, the Petitioner was found to indulge in acts prejudicial to the maintenance of public order and hence a second order of detention was passed against him on 1st November, 1983. After the period of detention was over the Petitioner was released. After the release, the Petitioner was found selling illicitly distilled arrack at about 3 p.m. on 29th November, 1984. When a police party engaged in conducting prohibition raids noticed the Petitioner and tried to apprehend him, the Petitioner is said to have pulled out a knife and brandished it and uttered threats to the members of the police party to refrain from arresting him if they cared for their lives. Notwithstanding the threats uttered by him, he is said to have been over -powered. In the scuffle that followed, two policemen are said to have sustained simple injuries. A case was registered against the Petitioner under Ss. 307, 332, 353 and 506 (ii) I.P.C. and Section 4 (1) (i) of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act. In spite of the registration of the case, the second Respondent deemed it proper that the Petitioner should be detained for a period of one year under the Act and that recourse to the normal method of trial and conviction will not meet the exigencies of the situation. Consequently, the second Respondent has passed the orders of detention. The said order was approved by the first Respondent and subsequently it has been confirmed after taking into account the representations made by the detenu and the report given by the Advisory Board. Now, as stated already, the Petitioner has filed this petition to secure his release.

(3.) ON a consideration Of the matter, we find ourselves unable to accept the case put forward by the State in justification of the order of detention. Ever without going into the merits of the first contention we find that the specific act leading the second Respondent to pass the impugned order is not of such a nature which can be classified as an act intended to disturb the maintenance of public order. Even accepting the case of the Respondents in full it would only be a case of the Petitioner selling illicitly distilled arrack and his being taken into custody by use of some force. Merely because the Petitioner tried to resist his apprehension and uttered some words of threat or adopted a menacing attitude it cannot be said that he had intended to disturb the even tempo of public life. At best his action could only amount to preventing the public servants from discharging their duty and attempting to cause hurt to them. Such acts cannot be equated with acts of a perverse nature which would have an adverse impact on the maintenance of public order.