(Order of the Court was made by P.MURGESEN, J.) The petitioner is the mother of the detenu, who was detained under Section 3(1) of the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drug- offenders, Forest-offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic offenders, Sand Offenders, Slum-grabbers and Video Pirates Act, 1982 (Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982), by branding him as a 'GOONDA'.
2. There are three adverse cases and one ground case as against the detenu. The first adverse case was in Crime No.288 of 2007 on the file of N-5 South Gate (Crime) Police Station registered under
Sections 457 and
380 IPC. The second adverse case was in Crime No.326 of 2009 on the file of C-3 S.S. Colony (Crime) Police Station registered under
Sections 457 and
380 IPC. The third adverse case was in Crime No.327 of 2009 on the file of C-3 S.S. Colony (Crime) Police Station registered under
Sections 457 and
380 IPC. The ground case was registered under Sections 392 r/w 397 and 506(ii) IPC in Crime No.330 of 2009 on the file of C3 SS Colony (Crime) Police Station. In the ground case, the detenu was arrested on 22.03.2009 and sent to judicial custody on the same day. Thereafter, his remand period was extended upto 30.04.2009.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner challenges the detention order on three grounds, firstly, the solitary instance of law and order problem in the ground case will not be a ground to come to the conclusion that the detenu is habitually committing crime; secondly, copies of remand extension orders in the ground case as well as the second adverse case and third adverse case for the period from 03.04.2009 to 17.04.2009 were not furnished to the detenu; thirdly, there was a delay in considering the representation of the detenu.
4. The detenu was arrested in the ground case on 22.03.2009 and he was charged under Sections 392 r/w 397 and 506(ii) IPC. Only in the ground case, he was charged under Sections 392 r/w 397 and 506(ii) IPC. Therefore, the learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the decision of this Court in the case of Mannar @ Ezhilarasan @ Suresh @ Arif v. State of Tamil Nadu, (2008) 1 MLJ (Crl) 318 and submitted that from one single transaction though consisting of several acts, a habit cannot be attributed to a person and the stand taken by the detaining authority that the detenu is habitually committing crime and acted in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order cannot be sustained. In the above decision, the decisions reported in AIR 2003 SC 971 in the case of Darpan Kumar Sharma alias Dharban Kumar Sharma v. State of Tamil Nadu and (2004) MLJ (Crl.) 306 in the case of Mala v. Secretary to Government, Prohibition and Excise Department, Government of Tamil Nadu, Chennai and (2006) 2 MLJ (Crl) 374 in the case of R.Kalavathi v. State of Tamil Nadu, were relied upon.
5. As per the decision in the case of Mannar @ Ezhilarasan @ Suresh @ Arif v. State of Tamil Nadu cited supra, it is clear that solitary act cannot be a ground to hold that the detenu is an habitual offender. As far as the present case is concerned, only in the ground case the detenu was arrested under Section 392 r/w 397 and 506(ii) IPC and therefore only in the ground case, there was law and order problem. Relying on the above decision of this Court, we are of the considered view that solitary instance cannot be a ground to hold that the detenu is an habitual offender and therefore, on this ground, the detention order passed by the second respondent is liable to be set aside.
6. The second ground raised by the counsel for the petitioner is that the detenu was not given the remand extension orders in the ground case as well as the second adverse case and third adverse case for the period from 03.04.2009 to 17.04.2009. In 2007(5) CTC 657, a Full Bench of this Court has pointed out that non-furnishing of relied-on copies of documents to the detenu, in spite of the request of the detenu, would vitiate the order of detention. In this case, these documents were not furnished. In the light of the above decision, it is clear that non-furnishing of the remand extension orders for the period from 03.04.2009 to 17.04.2009 which was relied on by the Detaining Authority, to the detenu, would vitiate the order of detention. On this ground also, the detention order is liable to be set aside.
7. The third ground relied on by the counsel for the petitioner is that there was delay in considering the representation of the detenu. In the proforma submitted by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, it is stated that the file was submitted on 26.05.2009; Under Secretary dealt with on 26.05.2009; Additional Secretary dealt with on 26.05.2009; Minister for PWD and Law dealt with the representation on 27.05.2009; rejection letter prepared on 01.06.2009; rejection letter sent to the detenu on 03.06.2009 and rejection letter served to the detenu on 05.06.2009. Though the file was submitted on 26.05.2009, the letter to the detenu was sent only on 03.06.2009. For this, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor has submitted that it is only a reasonable delay. 27.05.2009, 28.05.2009 and 29.05.2009 are working days and 30.05.2009 and 31.05.2009 are holidays. The letter was prepared on 01.06.2009 and it was sent only on 03.06.2009 and received on 05.06.2009. A perusal of the columns 13 to 16 of the proforma would show that there was delay in considering the representation of the detenu. The delay was also not explained properly with reason. Therefore, we are of the view that on this ground also, the detention order is liable to be set aside.
8. For all the above reasons, we are of the considered view this H.C.P is liable to be allowed and accordingly it is allowed and the order of detention in No.30/BDFGISSV/2009 dated 28.04.2009 passed by the second respondent is set aside. The detenu is directed to be released forthwith unless his presence is required in connection with any other case.
KM To
1.The Secretary to Government, Government of Tamil Nadu, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Fort St.George, Chennai-600 009.
2.The Commissioner of Police, Madurai City.
3.The Superintendent of Prison, Madurai Central Prison, Madurai.
4.The Secretary, Advisory Board, 32, Rajaji Salai, Singaraveler Maligai, Chennai Collectorate, Chennai.