IMPORTANT POINT
Where criminal cases against detenu were only minor theft offences which had not in any way affected maintenance of public order, detention order could not be sustained.

ORDER

Elipe Dharma Rao. J.—The Habeas Corpus Petition has been filed to call for the records pertaining to the order of detention passed by the 2nd respondent herein and made in S.C. No. 12/2009 dated 19.03.2009, set aside the same and to produce the body of the detenu, Moorthy, now confined in Central Prison, Salem, before this Court and set him at liberty.

2. The petitioner, who is the mother of the detenu, challenges the order of detention, detaining him under the provisions of Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982, after he was identified as a “Goonda”, since he had come to the adverse notice of the authorities on eleven earlier occasions and that on 05.03.2009, he indulged in activities prejudicial to the maintenance of public order by threatening the complainant. Tr. Logesh with a knife, which resulted in registration of the ground case in crime No.114 of 2009 on the file of the Inspector of Police, Hudco Police Station, for the offence under Section 392 IPC. In view of the above, the sponsoring authority has satisfied that the detenu is habitually committing crimes and also acted in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order and as such he is a Goonda, as contemplated under Section 2(f) of the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982 and hence, sponsored the detenu before the Detaining Authority for passing an order of detention against him. The Detaining Authority, on consideration of the materials placed before him, passed the order of detention against the detenu. Aggrieved of the same, the present Habeas Corpus Petition is filed.

3. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that insofar as the adverse cases are concerned, the offence registered against the detenu is one under Section 397 I.P.C. and insofar as the ground case is concerned, the offence registered against the detenu is one under Section 392 I.P.C. and since the offences committed by the detenu are only minor theft offences, which would not in any way be prejudicial to the maintenance of public order, the order of detention is liable to be set aside.

5. We perused the entire materials available on record. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, in the case reported in Dharpan Kumar Sharma v. State of Tamil Nadu and others1 has held as follows:

“…. Under the definitions in the Act, it is stated that in the case of “goonda” the acts prejudicial to public order are “when he is engaged, or is making preparations for engaging, in any of his activities as a goonda which affect adversely, or are likely to affect adversely, the maintenance of public order (Section 2(a) (iii)”. The question whether a man has only committed a breach of law and order or has acted in a manner likely to cause disturbance of the public order is a question of degree and the extent of the reach of the act upon the society; that a solitary assault on one individual can hardly be said to disturb public peace or place public order in jeopardy so as to bring the case within the purview of the Act providing for preventive detention”.

6. In the present case, as rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the offences registered against the detenu are only minor theft offences, which had not in any way affected the maintenance of public order. Hence, the said decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India is squarely applicable to the case on hand. Therefore, the order under challenge is liable to be set aside and it is accordingly set aside. The habeas corpus petition is allowed and the detenu is directed to be set at liberty forthwith, unless, his presence is required in connection with any other case.

Petition allowed.

*********