Back
1999 Supreme(Mad) 634
High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J. KANAKARAJ & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.S. SIRPURKAR
Vasanth Alias S. Vasanth Kumar - Appellant
Versus
State Of Tamil Nadu And Others - Respondents
H.C.Petn.No.50 of 1999
Decided On : 15 July 1999
The detention order under the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Forest Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders and Slum Grabbers Act, 1982 must express the satisfaction of the detaining authority that the person is a 'Goonda' as defined under Section 2(f) of the Act, and habitual criminal activity is an essential element to be considered in determining whether a person can be dubbed as a 'Goonda'.
Headnote:
TAMIL NADU PREVENTION OF DANGEROUS ACTIVITIES OF BOOTLEGGERS, DRUG OFFENDERS, FOREST OFFENDERS, GOONDAS, IMMORAL TRAFFIC OFFENDERS AND SLUM GRABBERS ACT, 1982 - SECTION 2(F) - DETENTION ORDER - SATISFACTION OF DETAINING AUTHORITY - HABITUAL CRIMINAL ACTIVITY - INTERPRETATION AND APPLICATION.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, detained under the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Forest Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders and Slum Grabbers Act, 1982 (Act 14 of 1982), challenged the detention order on the grounds of defective order and lack of material to dub him as a 'Goonda' under Section 2(f) of the Act.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the detention order was defective as it lacked the expression of satisfaction by the detaining authority that the petitioner was a 'Goonda' at the time of passing the order. Additionally, the court held that there was no material to suggest that the petitioner was involved in habitual criminal activity, as there was only one adverse case against him and no other registered cases.
Issues: 1. Whether the detention order was defective due to lack of satisfaction by the detaining authority? 2. Whether the petitioner could be dubbed as a 'Goonda' under Section 2(f) of the Act based on a single adverse case?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court interpreted Section 2(f) of the Act, which defines 'Goonda' as a person who habitually commits or attempts to commit or abets the commission of, or conspires with others to commit, or aids or instigates or harbours persons who commit or attempt to commit or abet the commission of, any of the offences specified in Schedule I or Schedule II. 2. The court held that the satisfaction of the detaining authority regarding the petitioner being a 'Goonda' must be expressed in the detention order itself and cannot be inferred from subsequent paragraphs. 3. The court further held that habitual criminal activity is an essential element to be considered while dubbing a person as a 'Goonda' and the mere existence of a single adverse case against the petitioner was insufficient to establish such habitual criminal activity.
Final Decision: The court allowed the petition, set aside the detention order, and ordered the petitioner's immediate release unless he was required in any other case.
V.S. SIRPURKAR, J.
The petitioner himself is a detenu. He was detained under section 3(1) of 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 called Act 14 of 1982 by order dated 29-10-98 passed by the Commissioner of Police, Chennai, so as to prevent him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order.
2. In support of this order, a number of grounds have been suggested wherein it is suggested that while the said person was residing along with one Sengottaian, he committed the murder of Annapoornam, wife of Sengottaian on or about 21-11-1996 along with two other accused persons. It is practically on the basis of this case alone that order is passed. It is stated that a confession has been made by one Vinothkumar alias Vinoth and on that basis, the petitioner Vasanth alias Vasanthkumar came to be arrested and on the basis of his confession one more person namely Vinoth alias Vinothkumar alias Kutty son of Selvaraj came to be arrested. It is suggested that the stolen properties from the house of Mr. Sengottaian were recovered from these accused persons, which amounted to Rs. 1.5 lakhs. In the grounds, the detaining authority has given the details as to how the murder was committed. On the basis it is suggested in the grounds that the accused persons including the present petitioner were involved in a number of cases, though those cases were not registered against them and therefore the detaining authority was of the opinion that the petitioner was habitually committing crime and was dubbed as such a Goonda as contemplated under section 2(f) of the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982. It is on account of that the petitioner came to be detained.
3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner firstly drew our attention to the detention order itself and pointed out that the order itself is defective. The Learned counsel particularly drew our attention to the first paragraph of the order where the satisfaction of the Commissioner of Police is normally recorded. The para runs as follows :
"Whereas, I. P. Kalimuthu, I.P.S., Commissioner of Police, Chennai City, am satisfied that with respect to the person known as Thiru. Vasanth alias Vasanthkumar, aged 22, s/o Selvaraj, No. 5, Lake Area, 6th Street, Nungambakkam, Chennai-34 and that with a view to preventing him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order, it is necessary to make the following order."
From this the learned counsel points out and in our opinion, firstly, that this cannot be said to be a display of the satisfaction of the detaining authority inasmuch, as apart from defective English, this order suffers from casualness. There is nothing to suggest in this paragraph that the Commissioner of Police was satisfied that the petitioner was a Goonda as contemplated under section 2(f) of the Act 14 of 1982 at the time when the order was made.
4. The Learned Public Prosecutor however, invited our attention to the second paragraph and more particularly the last three lines therein which are to the following effect.
"......... I hereby direct that the said Goonda Thiru Vasanth alias Vasanthkumar son of Selvaraj be detained and kept in Central Prison, Chennai.
The Learned Public Prosecutor suggests that the Commissioner of Police had in fact described the petitioner as a Goonda in the second paragraph where he prescribes the action taken on the basis of his satisfaction. Unfortunately, if there is no satisfaction recorded in the order, the concerned person against whom the action is proposed is either a Goonda, a Bootlegger or a forest offender, then there would be no question of going further and taking an action. The expression of that satisfaction is lacking in this order. Ordinarily, we would not find the order to be defective merely because a word here or a term
