Danasekaran @ Olli Dhanasu Desamuthu @ Desappan vs State

Arunachalam, J.

W.P. No. 1063 of 1993:

Petitioner Danasekaran alias Olli Dhanasu has been detained in pursuance of an order dated 31.3.1993 passed by the second Respondent,

Commissioner of Police, Madras City, under Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982, with a view to preventing the Petitioner from in any manner acting

prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. Petitioner has been classified as a ''goonda''.

Brief facts which led to the passing of the impugned order of detention will have to be stated.

Petitioner has come to adverse notice in four earlier crimes registered by E-1 Mylapore Police Station and D-5 Marina Police Station, for offences

punishable under Sections 379, 392, 147, 148, 336, 323, 307 and 427, I.P.C. The period of crimes ranges between 20.1.1992 and 20.3.1993.

In this background, ground crime had occurred on 27.3.1993 at or about 8:15 a.m. Viswanathan, an auto-rickshaw driver was waiting in front of

Kamadenu Theatre, at or about 8:15 p.m. on 273.1993. Detenu, along with his associate, got into the auto rickshaw of Viswanathan and directed

him to proceed to Foreshore Estate. Near Fathima Store on Santhome High Road, detenu and his friend directed the auto rickshaw driver to stop

the auto rickshaw. Both of them got down from the auto rickshaw. When Viswanathan demanded the metre fare, Detenu, abusing in vulgar words,

caught hold of his shirt. Associate of the detenu fisted Viswanathan on his cheek. When Viswanathan exclaimed that he would prefer a complaint

at the nearest police station, detenu, while abusing him, removed an aruval from his back and cut the victim on his head. The attack was warded

off. However, the injury fell on his right hand of Viswanathan. Viswanathan raised a hue and cry. Aut orickshaw drivers and public, who were at

the spot, attempted to rescue injured Viswanathan. Desamuthu, associate of the detenu, picked up soda water bottles from the nearby petty shop

and hurled the same. Soda water bottles got broken scattering in the whole area. When Viswanathan attempted to move away, Desamuthu,

holding the broken soda water bottle pieces, terrorised every one and attempted to stab Viswanathan on his stomach. Again Viswanathan

attempted to ward off the attack. Detenu armed with an aruval and his associate armed with a broken soda water bottle tore the top of the auto

rickshaw. Nearby shop owners closed down their shutters. Even tempo of public life got affected. Vehicular traffic was totally dislocated. Detenu

and his associate escaped from the scene. They were later arrested and produced before the Magistrate for remand. After follow up action,

impugned order of detention was passed.

Mr. M. Bhaskar, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner, contended that in the Tamil translation, of paragraph 4 of the grounds of

detention Sections of the Indian Penal Code have not been stated and that had prevented an effective representation being made. He then argued

that in respect of adverse cases Form No. 95 had not been furnished to the detenu and that was a serious lacuna sufficient to vitiate the order of

detention. He then urged that the statement of the Doctor, who had examined the victim in respect of the ground case, had not been furnished

though a copy of the accident register has been supplied. Next submission was that though the detenu was sent for treatment to Government

Royapettah Hospital, wound certificate has been issued by Medical Officer, Government General Hospital, Madras. This itself has not been

noticed by the Detaining Authority and hence there has been non-application of mind. Finally, he contended that though aruval is stated to have

been used by the detenu and it has been so mentioned in the grounds of detention, seizure mahazar and Form No. 95 indicate seizure of knife and

not an aruval. This discrepancy has been omitted to be noticed by the Detaining Authority and again this indicated non-application of mind.

On all these contentions, we have heard Mr. I. Subramaniam, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, who vehemently countered each one of

these grounds.

We have carefully considered the divergent contentions placed for our scrutiny. It is quite true that in the grounds of detention supplied in Tamil,

various sections of the Indian Penal Code, which form part of paragraph 4 of the English grounds have not been stated. But the Tamil grounds do

indicate that the Petitioner was in remand for a variety of offences committed by him and he was likely to be released on bail. We do not find any

grave disparity in translation, which could have prevented effective representation being made. This ground does not appeal to us.

Second ground also has no strength. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor brought to our notice that seizure mahazars have been supplied in

respect of all adverse cases and, therefore if Form No. 95 had not been supplied it can hardly make any difference, for seizure mahazars are the

only relied upon documents.

The next ground also deserves negation. The Detaining Authority has relied upon the accident register alone, a copy of which has been

furnished. However, in the grounds of detention, if any statement, made by the Doctor has been relied upon needing furnishing of the same to the

detenu that can make any difference. Such reliance had not been placed. This argument appears to be misconceived.

On the next ground, Petitioner''s counsel had to concede since the accident register nowhere states that the examining Medical Officer was from

Government General Hospital. It only states Government Hospital. Royapettah Hospital to which the victim was forwarded is admittedly a

Government Hospital. We do not find any discrepancy whatever.

It is true that the grounds of detention mention that the detenu was armed with aruval, while Form No. 95 and Mahazar describe it as a knife. A

mere look into the contents of the seizure mahazar will easily disclose that the seizure was of a long instrument bent at its end. The description fits in

with aruval allegedly used by the detenu. Petitioner cannot complain of any serious lacuna, which had prevented him from making an effective

representation. It is apparent that a lethal weapon, all the more so, a sharp edged instrument, had been used in the attack by the detenu. All the

grounds shall stand negatived. This habeas corpus petition, which has no merit, shall stand dismissed.

H.C.P. No. 1064 of 1993: As soon as we finished dictating orders in H.C.P. No. 1063 of 1993, Mr. M. Bhaskar, representing Desamurthy

the Petitioner/detenu in H.C.P. No. 1064 of 1993, submitted that this detenu is also involved in the same ground crime in which the

Petitioner/detenu in H.C.P. No. 1063 of 1993 is involved. He also submitted that the grounds pleaded on behalf of the Petitioner in H.CP. No.

1064 of 1993 are also identical. If that be so, our reasoning in H.C.P. No. 1063 of 1993 will equally apply to the Petitioner in H.C.P. No. 1064

of 1993 also. In that view, this habeas corpus petition shall also stand dismissed.