D. Kulaivanan vs State of Tamilnadu and another

Arunachalam, J.—Petitioner Kalaivanan has been detained as a ''goonda'' under Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982 in pursuance of an order of detention dated 18.12.1992 passed by the second respondent, Commissioner of Police, Madras City, with a view to preventing him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order.

Petitioner had come to adverse notice in four prior crimes registered by B-l North Beach Police Station and B-2 Esplanade Police Station, for offences punishable under S. 379,457 and 389, 397,392 r/w. 397 and 506(ii) I.P.C., crimes period ranging between 11.12.1991 and 29.11.1992.

It is in this background that the petitioner got himself involved in the ground crime, which had occurred at or about 3 p.m. on 8.12.1992 near Burma Bazaar, petitioner and his associate Velan, who were standing at the bus stop, way laid Anbu and asked him where he was proceeding. When Anbu replied that he was on his way to the bus stop, detenu snatched the National tape-recorder held by him. That attempt was partially warded off. Immediately, Velan, associate of the petitioner, threatened Anbu, that if he did not part with the tape-recorder, he would be stabbed. So saying Velan removed a pen knife from his hip and rushed towards Anbu. That attempted attack was also warded off, though in the process Anbu sustained an injury over his left hand. Velan inserted his hand into the shirt pocket of Anbu and relieved him of Rs. 45/- in cash. When the petitioner and Velan were proceedings towards the railway track, Anbu raised a hue and cry....

He also chased them. Hussain and Ganesan, who were at the vicinity, joined Anbu in chasing the offenders. Immediately, petitioner and Velu, took out jelly stones form the railway track and hurled them against the chasers. Petitioner and his associate also terrorised stating that any one who chosed to near them, would have their heads broken and intestines pulled out Members of the public ran helter skelter. Nearby shop owners closed down their shutters, out of fear. Platform vendors abandoned their belongings and rushed for safety. Traffic in that area was totally dislocated. Even tempo of public life came to a grinding halt. However, policemen attached to B-1 North Beach Police Station, who were at the spot, on noticing all these activities apprehended the petitioner and Velan, almost at the venue of crime. Tape recorder and cash were recovered form them. Complaint of Anbu was registered. Arrested petitioner and another were produced before the Magistrate and remand obtained. After follow up action, the impugned order of detention was passed.

Mr. M. Bhaskar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, contended that a few lines in form 95, supplied to the detenu were illegible and hence communication was not complete. We are unable to agree, for seizure mahazar, which stands correlated to form 95, has been supplied to the petitioner and that document is, admittedly, legible. No prejudice has resulted to the petitioner due to the illegibility of few lines in form 95. This ground is rejected.

The next contention, is that in the first adverse case, mentioned in the grounds of detention, petitioner was released on bail, but in the second adverse case, there is no indication of his having been released on bail. On the contrary, document supplied at page 25 of the paper book, will show that the accused were not released on bail. The argument was that there was non-application of mind, on this vital aspect. We cannot overlook, that adverse crimes have been mentioned only in passing. The arrest in respect of adverse cases 1 and 2 was on the same day and the petitioner was produced for remand in both the cases. If it had stopped with those two adverse cases and nothing more before the ground crime, greatest scrutiny may have to be done about the availability of the petitioner outside prison to get himself involved in the ground crime. However, in adverse cases 3 and 4, admittedly, petitioner was arrested with stolen property and the same has also been mentioned in the grounds of detention. That the petitioner was enjoying liberty at the time of ground crime is further affirmed by his having been caught red-handed, with the stolen property at the venue of crime, after the offence was committed.

At this stage, learned Government Advocate brought to our notice, page 29 of the paper books, which relate to second adverse crime, which ultimately led to prosecution of the petitioner and two others in C.C. No. 129 of 1992 on the file of Metropolitan Magistrate, Madras. On 7.12.1992, petitioner, through his counsel, had preferred an application under Sec. 317, Cr.P.C, to have his presence dispensed with on that day. His request was acceded to and hearing was adjourned to 4.1.1993. It is apparent that the documents furnished to the petitioner clearly indicate that he was enjoying liberty in the second adverse case further and he had also chosen through his counsel, for condonation of his absence on one particular hearing date.

We are unable to find any infirmity which could be of any help to the petitioner to have the impugned order quashed. Both the grounds are rejected. This habeas corpus petition, which has no merit, shall stand dismissed.